Kraft's comment about the Denver game....

Pats726 · May 17, 2006

In Kraft's interview on EEI, he mentioned that a league official who he talked to had said that there was NO WAY that Bailey's fumbled ball did not go through part of the end zone and that it shold have been Patriot ball on the 20. I found this rather interesting...and was surprised no one had mentioned it. Wonder who the league official was??

BelichickFan · May 17, 2006

Although I think it went through the end zone, I haven't seen one angle in which you can be sure either way.

Urgent · May 17, 2006

Impossible to prove technicality.

The clearly Pats lost that game.

richpats · May 17, 2006

Urgent said:
Impossible to prove technicality.

The clearly Pats lost that game.

I think they lost it after the ensuing TD. At 17-6 in the 3rd quarter, it was still a winnable game. The overthrow to Brown for a sure TD, the Vinatieri miss, the Brown fumble, those were the plays that truly lost the game. The Bailey pick/fumble was just a huge momentum killer that the Pats obviously never recovered from.

MoLewisrocks · May 17, 2006

While the league is reluctant to admit officiating errors in public, they routinely do so as some sort of pseudo-apology to victimized coaches and owners in private. That acknowledgement and the promise to strive to do better going forward is the only way they keep guys with millions at their disposal (and on the line) who can pay their fines out of petty cash from making too many inflamatory public statements about the leagues continuing struggle with officiating incompetence. The technology exists to replace much of what they do, as is the case with umpires in baseball. They have to make nice in order to keep ownership on the side of maintaining the human element as a core part of the game.

PatsWickedPissah · May 17, 2006

MoLewisrocks said:
While the league is reluctant to admit officiating errors in public, they routinely do so as some sort of pseudo-apology to victimized coaches and owners in private. That acknowledgement and the promise to strive to do better going forward is the only way they keep guys with millions at their disposal (and on the line) who can pay their fines out of petty cash from making too many inflamatory public statements about the leagues continuing struggle with officiating incompetence. The technology exists to replace much of what they do, as is the case with umpires in baseball. They have to make nice in order to keep ownership on the side of maintaining the human element as a core part of the game.

Why do they feel they must maintain the human element? It's the 21st century. Inexpensive laser detectors hooked to readily available cameras could monitor out of bounds and goaline crossings. Less importantly, precise line of scrimmage references could be established. A technical step further could soon place a nanoscale wireless transponder on the football.

The NFL accepts radios to the QB's helmuts and other innovations. Get with the times and deploy Radio Shack available technology.

One of the many reasons I gave up on the NBA was their 2 tiered human style officiating where the Stars were rarely called for travelling or for fouling.

Pats726 · May 17, 2006

PatsWickedPissah said:
One of the many reasons I gave up on the NBA was their 2 tiered human style officiating where the Stars were rarely called for travelling or for fouling.

While I agree athletes are much better now than years ago, I think it interesting to look at games from the 60s..and see what was called "traveling".."palming"..etc and how those definitions are totally changed. Put one of today's players with the old rules..MUCH different.
I agree..and how many "stars" are protected to fouls is getting absurd...I always thought they did..how else Wilt the Stilt NEVER fouled out of a game..some things do not change.
Yes bring in the technology and upgrade!! The human element will always be there, but the way officiating has been..it is getting WORSE by leaps and bounds, NOT in anyway better!!

arrellbee · May 17, 2006

Pats726 said:
While I agree athletes are much better now than years ago, I think it interesting to look at games from the 60s..and see what was called "traveling".."palming"..etc and how those definitions are totally changed. Put one of today's players with the old rules..MUCH different.
I agree..and how many "stars" are protected to fouls is getting absurd...I always thought they did..how else Wilt the Stilt NEVER fouled out of a game..some things do not change.
Yes bring in the technology and upgrade!! The human element will always be there, but the way officiating has been..it is getting WORSE by leaps and bounds, NOT in anyway better!!

When I stopped watching the NBA was when Moses Malone came in (and Darrel Dawkins) and the game allowed these thug type centers to physically back a defender down to the basket. I guess the league and referees didn't have any choice, because the teams would have screamed if their uber-high paid center was fouled out of the game in the first quarter of each game - or was pretty ineffective because he could only score within 4 or 5 feet of the basket. I'm not sure if another thing was allowed in the 'good old days', but I also think it is ugly to call a foul on a defender when the shooter jumps into the defender or extends his shooting motion into the defender's arms which are straight over the defender's head. At least they made some attempt to disallow the heavy hand-checking that was going on.

BradyManny · May 17, 2006

I don't give a crap about camera angles and what not, it's physically impossible that ball did not travel through the goalline. As Ben Watson said, some nerds at MIT proved it to him. The bottom line is, any idiot knows that for that Bailey ball to not pass through that end zone, it would've had to shoot out absolutely directly left, which it did not.

Perhaps a more appropriate comment would be to say that 99/100 times a ball is fumbled that close to the goal line, it's called a touchback.

The officiating throughout the playoffs sucked hardcore, and in every case, the officials just went with the hometeam. I think that the refereeing was so bad that the refs were demoralized and just went with what would avoid getting boos.

Anyway, I think in 10 years we'll look back on the Denver loss as a blessing as it ended up providing us not only with an absurd amount of motivation going forth, but with a draft in which we got 2 players who will likely become offensive stars in Pats uniforms for years to come.

arrellbee · May 17, 2006

BradyManny2344 said:
I don't give a crap about camera angles and what not, it's physically impossible that ball did not travel through the goalline. As Ben Watson said, some nerds at MIT proved it to him. The bottom line is, any idiot knows that for that Bailey ball to not pass through that end zone, it would've had to shoot out absolutely directly left, which it did not.

It's water long gone over the dam, but it's very likely that the ball did sail out of bounds before the goal line. There are two key camera angles of sequences that provide pretty sound evidence. The first shows that Bailey was bringing his right hand with the ball from a position hanging down on his right side up across the front of his body just before Watson made his hit. So you had the momentum of his arm bringing the ball up across his body AND that the ball was close to his body when Watson hit him. Watson did not hit the ball when he tackled Bailey (even if he had, there is no way he could have punched the ball towards the goal line when it was close to Bailey's body). The second crucial angle that was not shown very much in replays but which was shown at least once that I saw was an angle that was looking almost directly down the sideline from the vantage point of the end zone. This clearly shows the ball in the frame after the hit to the left of Bailey's body and then in the next frame outside the sideline. For the ball to have crossed the goal line, the ball would have had to appear as though it was still in front of Bailey's body in those two frames. I'm not sure what the MIT folks were analyzing, but they must not have been using elementary analytical drafting techniques of striking a line based on points in two orthogonal views.

BradyManny · May 17, 2006

arrellbee said:
It's water long gone over the dam, but it's very likely that the ball did sail out of bounds before the goal line.

I agree this is old news and probably not worth discusging, but they were analyzing where the ball landed and proved that it simply could not have gotten there without going through the endzone. The ball had to get out of bounds in about a foot's space (if that) - thus if it really did travel OB before crossing the goal line, it should've landed nearly dead left of the playing field, right? I'm not sure about the angles you are referring to, but I'm pretty adamant that simple logic tells us it went through the endzone, not to mention every camera angle I saw seemed to show likewise.

pats1 · May 17, 2006

This Broncos website has some good pictures from the NFL Network that supposedly prove that the ball went out before the end zone, but it doesn't mention at all that a simple reposition of the camera can make the ball appear to to any direction in terms of the pilon.

http://www.tnedstats.com/broncos/ChampsINTFUMB.htm

For example, mentally reposition the camera to the right. Now where does the ball appear?

BradyManny · May 17, 2006

Leave it to Broncos fans to prove the other team's points, I think those pics show its quite likely the ball did pass through the endzone. It's quite clear that if that camera were dead on with the sideline, the ball would be quite on line with the pylon. For it to go that far and on that line means it couldn't have made its way OB before it crossed the pylon.

But this is all besides the point I was trying to make, which is that the refs more often than not call that play a touchback - and that the referees for all playoff games was quite sketch.

pats1 · May 17, 2006

Nantz: "Incomplete, nice play by Asante Samuel...NOW A LATE FLAG!"

:Lelie and Samuel both throw their hands up.:

Simms: "I've always said there's no such thing as a late flag. I was wrong. That took a LONG time to happen. They might pick it up."

:Colvin gets in Triplette's face. Triplette waves his hand at him saying "No, No, No." Pushes him away.:

Simms: "There was a lot of contact, and Asante Samuel DID look back for the football."

Nantz: "There's a couple of teammates trying to restrain him right now..."

"Pass Interference, defense, #22. Foul occured in endzone. It will be first and goal."

Simms: "Watch them down the field..."

:replay shown:

Simms: "Oh, there's going to be a lot of talk about this. Asante Samuel is in GOOD position. Lelie actually puts his hands on Asante Samuel! He's looking for the football the whole way. They're going to say he cut across the receiver. Not really! He beat Ashley Lelie to the spot!"

CheerforTom · May 17, 2006

Ugh. Bad memories.

But yeah, that was definately the day that I actually gained a liking for Phil Simms. I thought his was the voice of reason through both the PI call and the Bailey hit. Naturally, the refs ignored him both times.

Oh well.

BelichickFan · May 17, 2006

This is why we need a better regular season and HF next year. That call doesn't get made at Gillette. Right or wrong, that's how it is and why we need 14-2 (or better

) in 2006.

pats1 · May 17, 2006

Hench's two great articles on the entire playoffs' atrocious officiating:

http://www.google.com/search?hs=rJ8...+sports+kevin+hench+asante+samuel&btnG=Search

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5311162

10. Champ Bailey's magic fumble

It was the play that ended the Patriots dynasty. But it shouldn't have. When New England tight end Benjamin Watson made his incredible dash from the opposite side of the field to crush Champ Bailey at the 1-yard line after a 100-yard interception return, the ball exited the field of play at an angle, crossing over the pylon before landing out of bounds. Had referee Jeff Triplette heard and heeded analyst Phil Simms' astute advice â€” make a direct line from where the ball landed back to where it was fumbled to determine where it went out â€” it would have been New England ball at the 20. Instead, Triplette took the easy way out, basically awarding the home team a TD by giving them the ball at the 1. It was the second touchdown the officials had generously awarded to the Broncos. More on that later.

8. Andre' Davis gets mugged on no-call

Back to Denver. There were a lot of bad calls and bad no-calls in the Pats-Broncos game, but one that got almost no attention came on the Patriots' fifth and final turnover. Yes, Tom Brady was making a desperation heave into triple coverage and, yes, the ball probably deserved to be picked. But that doesn't excuse what happened next and the no-call that went with it. While Denver safety John Lynch measured the flight of the ball lining up his interception, a teammate simply tackled intended receiver Andre' Davis. Now Davis wasn't going to make a catch on the play, but had he not been tackled, he could have at least broken up the pick. The game was pretty much over at that point so it wasn't that big a deal. But when you compare the no-call to a pass interference call made earlier in the game, it's staggering. More on that later.

1. Oh, Asante! Oh, humanity!

The NFL offered no such they-a-culpa for Patriots fans. (Shut up, Raiders fans, the tuck rule may be a bad rule but it was interpreted correctly.) The Patriots-Broncos playoff game turned on a phantom pass interference call on Asante Samuel who despite perfect coverage â€” and looking back for the ball â€” was flagged for a 39-yard pass interference penalty that basically awarded Denver its first lead. This call led HBO's Cris Collinsworth to plead with the league that pass interference penalties have to be able to be reviewed. I repeat that plea here. How can you have these 40- and 50-yard plays determining the outcome of playoff games with no way to make sure you're getting them right?

I mean, the NFL doesn't want the officials to determine next year's champion too, does it?

Patjew · May 17, 2006

Stop re-opening the wound!!!

ayjackson · May 17, 2006

whether it went into the end zone or not, it's a stupid rule....

if you fumble and it goes out at the one-foot line, it's your ball at the one-foot line....if you fumble and it travels a foot further before it goes out, it's your opponent's ball at their 20! it really is not a very sound peice of logic...it's a tough one to solve though.

in the end, denver deserved a touchdown on that play....the interference on samuel was the one call that caused me the most grief.

arrellbee · May 17, 2006

You begin to get a clue about credibility when you read accounts that Bailey was hit at the one yard line. The first frame shows he was hit at the 2 yard line. The vertical line I added shows the ball at that point being about 6 feet from the goal line.

Now look at the second frame. The ball is at Bailey's eye level and the pylon is visible to the right - at this time, the ball is NOT over the goal line. The ball is in a plane that cuts thru Bailey's knee

Now the third frame from an end zone view with ball at Bailey's eye level at the same instant as the second frame where the ball is at Bailey's eye level - clearly the ball is two or three feet outside of bounds - and remember, from the second frame at the same instant the ball is absolutely not over the goal line yet.

I'm not sure how the MIT guys came up with the ball crossing the goal line before it was out of bounds. I think maybe I don't want to drive over any bridges that these particular guys design.

I hope this puts a lot of folks mind at ease about this particular play. The ref got it very right.

Kraft's comment about the Denver game....

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Banned

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

Moderator

Pro Bowl Player

Moderator

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderator

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Similar threads