Ryan Allen's Decision to pass on the Safety, and Dierdorf's odd analysis

[scout]

I almost had to mute the broadcast. Why would you want the Colts first and goal on the two versus 2 points? Even if you held them, they automatically get 3 points. I was thinking the punter should have swatted the ball to the back of the end zone to begin with.

 

[Kdo5]

Was that Dierdorf. Thank god he is done...and what better way than a convincing Patriot playoff win?

 

[Brady6]

That was the best possible outcome; in fact in my opinion if Allen was more experience he would have known to kick the ball through the end zone rather than picking it up.

 

[brdmaverick]

Yes, two things shocked me on that play...

1.) That Ryan Allen even tried to pick it up in the first place (I mean, isn't it almost punting 101 to kick the ball out in a situation like that)

2.) For the broadcaster to scold the kicker for not eating the ball at the two and 'giving his defense a chance'. I was at home yelling for him to kick it out for the safety, and relieved when I saw the Colts knock it out for us.

But yes, terrible analysis. Unless you're up by 9 in the final minute of a game, you always kick it out.

Idiot broadcaster

 

[RayClay]

He is stupid. I imagine even most offensive linemen have a better grasp of the game than him.

 

[Uncle Rico]

That was the best possible outcome; in fact in my opinion if Allen was more experience he would have known to kick the ball through the end zone rather than picking it up.

Yup. Because among other things you don't want your punter getting injured on the play. Because among other things you don't want Tom Brady holding kicks.

 

[northernpatriot]

Safety

Yes, stupid from deirdorf, but according to some on twitter, had Allen kicked it from the 2, it would have drawn a flag and colts get the ball on the 2. If true, very lucky for the Pats.

 

[wpdougie2180]

I personally thought it could have been called an incompletion since technically he did attempt to throw a forward pass

 

[Galeb]

I personally thought it could have been called an incompletion since technically he did attempt to throw a forward pass

That's what I thought.

 

[Fencer]

I personally thought it could have been called an incompletion since technically he did attempt to throw a forward pass

That's probably what he was trying to accomplish.

It would actually have been intentional grounding, but that still would have been a good outcome, just so long as it wasn't a Garo Yepremian kind of screw-up.

1973 Super Bowl VII Garo Yepremien Attempts a Pass - YouTube

 

[Galeb]

That's probably what he was trying to accomplish.

It would actually have been intentional grounding, but that still would have been a good outcome, just so long as it wasn't a Garo Yepremian kind of screw-up.

1973 Super Bowl VII Garo Yepremien Attempts a Pass - YouTube

Is there a distance back that counts as outside the box, and wasn't there an eligible receiver nearby? I would call that a batted down pass.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Yes, stupid from deirdorf, but according to some on twitter, had Allen kicked it from the 2, it would have drawn a flag and colts get the ball on the 2. If true, very lucky for the Pats.

Nope. First, if the defense accepts the penalty it is 4th down over again. Second, the 15 yd illegal batting/kicking penalty is enforced from the line of scrimmage, not the spot of the bat/kick.

So defense would always decline the penalty and take the safety.

Don't you remember the Colts punter kicking the ball out of the endzone after a bad snap in the 2003 AFCCG?

 

[Patsfan_22]

I personally thought it could have been called an incompletion since technically he did attempt to throw a forward pass

Wouldn't he have to throw it past the line of scrimmage for it to be an incomplete pass? Otherwise they get penalized for intentional grounding.

 

[Crononaut]

I love how they came back from break and he tried to backtrack by stating there were "two schools of thought" on the decision there.

When really there was just the School of the Sane, and the School of Dierdorf.

 

[wpdougie2180]

That's probably what he was trying to accomplish.

It would actually have been intentional grounding, but that still would have been a good outcome, just so long as it wasn't a Garo Yepremian kind of screw-up.

1973 Super Bowl VII Garo Yepremien Attempts a Pass - YouTube

Wasn't Wilson (#27) right there though now I'm not sure if he was eligible though?

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

This didn't bug me that much. Neither did the constant sentence fragments. What bugged me was his analysis that smashmouth, power running was a new brand of football for Tom Brady and the NE Patriots. Antowain Smith dragging three Rams for a first down or Cory Dillon inflicting pain on Steelers defenders for the heck of it doesn't ring a bell with Dan?

 

[Fencer]

I don't have a clear opinion on the intentional grounding idea. Both the play and the rule are confusing.

Meanwhile, I haven't found a crystal-clear box score yet, but I saw one that attributed fumbles both to Aiken and Allen, which would suggest Aiken fumbled (which is certainly the case), Allen recovered, and then Allen promptly fumbled, with the second fumble being the safety.

 

[supafly]

As others have pointed out, we all wanted it to stand as a safety.

My concern was that the longer the refs talked about it, the more they may have felt that it was an incomplete pass, and have ruled it IND ball at our 2.

I am guessing that they ruled it a fumble, and that's why the safety stood.

For the guy who claimed that he read comments on twitter that said that if Allen had recovered in time and gotten a punt off, that it'd have been a penalty--that obviously isn't true. We've seen a ton of instances where the snap is bobbled or the punter drops it before recovering and getting the punt off. As long as he'd be able to punt it, it was have been a fine and acceptable punt.

Allen should have indeed known better and kicked it out the back of the EZ, but it all worked out in the end (luckily). That could have been a disaster.

 

[Fencer]

My concern was that the longer the refs talked about it, the more they may have felt that it was an incomplete pass, and have ruled it IND ball at our 2.

If it were an incomplete pass, wouldn't the ball be spotted at the previous LOS?

 

[supafly]

If it were an incomplete pass, wouldn't the ball be spotted at the previous LOS?

That's actually what I'm not certain of, Fencer, but it's certainly a fair question to ponder.

It may be a bit different in that situation on punts, but you very well may be correct. As others have stated, that was my concern anyway--that they'd have ruled it incomplete and the Colts would have taken over at the 2 somehow.