PostGame Thread Patriots Lose to the Dolphins 15-10, Drop to 1-4

[Ring 6]

From what I understand the Toe drag would be considered a step so the next step can be out of bounds. Polk got his toe down but the heel came down out of bounds which completed the step. After he got the toes down if he could have lifted his leg up and fallen out of bounds the step was completed with the toe tap. The completion of the step is what made it an incomplete pass.

As the rule "heel-toe or toe-heel" is written it was a good call on Sunday. I think it is a bad rule though because sometimes the toes count as in bounds and sometimes, they don't. It feels contradictory to me, let it be toes or heels in bounds before anything lands out of bounds.

First part is dead on.

Second part would mean if part of your foot lands on and part lands out you are in bounds, which conflicts with every facet of every in bounds/ out of bounds rule.

 

[dliverey44]

First part is dead on.

Second part would mean if part of your foot lands on and part lands out you are in bounds, which conflicts with every facet of every in bounds/ out of bounds rule.

If they land simultaneously then it would be out of bounds. I am not sure I understand what you mean about conflicting the rule.

 

[Ring 6]

If they land simultaneously then it would be out of bounds. I am not sure I understand what you mean about conflicting the rule.

Simultaneously is the entire step.

All in bounds/out of bounds rules say when any part of your body is out of bounds you are out. To say if part of the foot is in and part is out = in bounds conflicts with every rule on the topic.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

No. With a toe tap the toe is the only part of the foot that hits the ground on that step. That’s why it’s a TAP. Two feet in means the entire part of the foot that touches the ground. The entire foot doesn’t touch the ground in every step, like a toe tap.
I don’t understand what you think the rule should be. The only rule that would have made that a catch would be a rule that says if any piece of your foot is in bounds you are in bounds.

Toes don’t equal catches. Feet do. When the toe is the only part to touch that makes it the whole foot.

I think the rule could (and should) be that if your any part of your second foot comes down entirely in bounds with no part touching out of bounds then that's considered getting the second foot in. Forget the whole "step" concept and just simplify it to you need both feet to be touching in bounds with no part touching out of bounds. So Polk got the first foot in and then when the second foot hit in bounds first without any part touching out of bounds that would make it a catch in that wording.

The "step" concept seems silly to me because even to use your correct interpretation of the rule, is a toe drag really a "step"? It just seems overly complicated to me. If you can get both of your feet touching in bounds without either touching out of bounds (and both touching in bounds before the other touches out) then make it a catch. It just seems so simple and easy to interpret that way. All IMO of course.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the rule could (and should) be that if your any part of your second foot comes down entirely in bounds with no part touching out of bounds then that's considered getting the second foot in. Forget the whole "step" concept and just simplify it to you need both feet to be touching in bounds with no part touching out of bounds. So Polk got the first foot in and then when the second foot hit in bounds first without any part touching out of bounds that would make it a catch in that wording.

The "step" concept seems silly to me because even to use your correct interpretation of the rule, is a toe drag really a "step"? It just seems overly complicated to me. If you can get both of your feet touching in bounds without either touching out of bounds (and both touching in bounds before the other touches out) then make it a catch. It just seems so simple and easy to interpret that way. All IMO of course.

So on a sideline play you would want the referee to have to determine, on a regular normal step whether the heel in bounds touched a microsecond before the tie out of bounds?

I’m just not getting the dispute. When the second foot comes down it has to be in bounds.

It’s like saying a fumble isn’t a fumble because when his knee hit he still had a finger on the ball.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

So on a sideline play you would want the referee to have to determine, on a regular normal step whether the heel in bounds touched a microsecond before the tie out of bounds?

I’m just not getting the dispute. When the second foot comes down it has to be in bounds.

It’s like saying a fumble isn’t a fumble because when his knee hit he still had a finger on the ball.

I get what you mean here. Even a "flat" step is always going to be at some sort of angle. Definitely don't want refs zooming in blades of grass to see if the back heel was first vs. the ball of the foot out of bounds lol

It just seems silly because the hell touch Polk had is so demonstrably different than that scenario. Ignore writing a rule for a second and just imagine them flashing a bunch of clips and asking "should this be a catch or not?" and clearly I'd say yes for Polk. But when you break it down I guess it's hard to write a rule that's universal.

Oh well, weird quick. It is what it is

 

[Pats2000]

Yes if he jump off from the toe making it the only contact with the ground on that step it’s a catch. Why? Because his feet were in bounds. It wasn’t a catch because his foot came down out of bounds.

I don't know why you argue on the side of stupidity constantly. If you get a foot down and drag your other toe out of bounds, it's a catch, doesn't require all of both feet. It's no different, you got a toe and a foot in bounds. It should be a catch

 

[Pats2000]

From what I understand the Toe drag would be considered a step so the next step can be out of bounds. Polk got his toe down but the heel came down out of bounds which completed the step. After he got the toes down if he could have lifted his leg up and fallen out of bounds the step was completed with the toe tap. The completion of the step is what made it an incomplete pass.

As the rule "heel-toe or toe-heel" is written it was a good call on Sunday. I think it is a bad rule though because sometimes the toes count as in bounds and sometimes, they don't. It feels contradictory to me, let it be toes or heels in bounds before anything lands out of bounds.

Edit: I am glad it was not a TD because it would have saved JBs job for another week because we more than likely win.

It may have followed the letter of the rule, but it's a dumb ****ing rule. If he had landed on his elbow and slid out of bounds, it would have been a catch. Literally any other combination of body parts touching in bounds is a catch as long as they land in bounds. But not a toe and a full foot. It's like they are purposely making the rules too complex to really moderate well.

 

[Pats2000]

First part is dead on.

Second part would mean if part of your foot lands on and part lands out you are in bounds, which conflicts with every facet of every in bounds/ out of bounds rule.

It does not, because you got two parts of your feet down, in bounds before going out of bounds. Just like every other catch. Hell, you can drag your feet out of bounds and it's a catch. That rule should mean you can't do that, because you didn't make another move before going out of bounds and both feet ended up out of bounds.

 

[Ring 6]

I get what you mean here. Even a "flat" step is always going to be at some sort of angle. Definitely don't want refs zooming in blades of grass to see if the back heel was first vs. the ball of the foot out of bounds lol

It just seems silly because the hell touch Polk had is so demonstrably different than that scenario. Ignore writing a rule for a second and just imagine them flashing a bunch of clips and asking "should this be a catch or not?" and clearly I'd say yes for Polk. But when you break it down I guess it's hard to write a rule that's universal.

Oh well, weird quick. It is what it is

I so I’ll d definitely say no for Polk. His foot landed out of bounds. Clear as day.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know why you argue on the side of stupidity constantly. If you get a foot down and drag your other toe out of bounds, it's a catch, doesn't require all of both feet. It's no different, you got a toe and a foot in bounds. It should be a catch

I’m arguing the side of stupidity when everyone who understands the rule agrees with me?
When you drag the toe, the tie is the only part of the foot that contacts the ground. It DOES require all of both feet. On the drag toe situation all of the foot that touches is inbounds.

 

[Ring 6]

It may have followed the letter of the rule, but it's a dumb ****ing rule. If he had landed on his elbow and slid out of bounds, it would have been a catch. Literally any other combination of body parts touching in bounds is a catch as long as they land in bounds. But not a toe and a full foot. It's like they are purposely making the rules too complex to really moderate well.

Yes that’s what rules are. They define what is acceptable and what isn’t.

I don’t understand why you think it’s complicated.

You need 2 feet in. Whatever part of your foot touches the ground in getting 2 feet down must be in bounds. If any part is out this big a catch. Simple

 

[Pats2000]

I’m arguing the side of stupidity when everyone who understands the rule agrees with me?
When you drag the toe, the tie is the only part of the foot that contacts the ground. It DOES require all of both feet. On the drag toe situation all of the foot that touches is inbounds.

So tell me what the difference is between a toe being dragged and toe touching in bounds and a heel coming down. Both started with a toe and ended out of bounds.

The interpretation of the rule is correct, the application of the rule is stupid.

 

[dliverey44]

Simultaneously is the entire step.

All in bounds/out of bounds rules say when any part of your body is out of bounds you are out. To say if part of the foot is in and part is out = in bounds conflicts with every rule on the topic.

Fair...Thanks for giving us the explanation of the rule. I did not understand it until you explained it in the game day thread I think it was.

 

[Ring 6]

So tell me what the difference is between a toe being dragged and toe touching in bounds and a heel coming down. Both started with a toe and ended out of bounds.

The interpretation of the rule is correct, the application of the rule is stupid.

Because the definition of the foot being in is that every part of the foot lands in bounds.
If you drag your toes the toes are in bounds, no part of the foot is out of bounds. You have “landed” the step and it’s 100% in bounds.

When the step includes both the toe and heel landing, again whatever “lands” constitutes that step and must all be in bounds.

 

[Vindicate]

Okay, so I guess I'm way out of step with the fanbase. I was under the impression that we were in the first year of a rebuild under a new coach, knew we had a bunch of spare parts and young guys at several position groups particularly the offensive line and had lost the two main defensive dudes in the middle of our at-the-time decent defense for the year. I had therefore concluded, obviously wrongly, that our objectives this year were to figure out some important things going forward about the players and schemes we were going to take as our direction while building experience among our rookies and new coaching staff and carefully shepherding our #3 Draft Pick QB so he can be put in a position to succeed. The not-so-subtle but understood aspect of this is that we were NOT playing to win, in terms of trying to somehow sneak into the Wild Card spot because that was basically unattainable and not particularly desirable for a team in Year 1 of a rebuild, but were focused on the future. Hence we are also looking to get good draft picks for next year too, where we can hopefully get some foundational pieces for critical positions such as the OL where we have a clear talent deficit after years of bad drafting late in the rounds because of our dynastic success.

Having been on vacation (Scotland FTW!) and missed the last two games previous, and not having opened the GDT for quite some time, I'm quite surprised to discover we were in "win now!" mode. I'm shocked that we're already at the stage of wanting to fire the coach in Game 5 since I had understood we were in no position to win given what I wrote above, not to mention that we also lost our anchor and leader on the OL for the season and our two most experienced safeties to boot. This left us with basically two giant holes up the center of the Offense and Defense, and you could easily see the impacts this had on our inability to stop their running game and pass rush.

I don't get it. It was a comically entertaining game, with Buttfumble Sanchez providing a suitable substitute for the Benny Hill theme throughout the travesty while the referees tried to deal with having been accidentally dropped off at a mid-level high school football game. Yet the GDT was not at all unlike it used to be when the games mattered and we were trying to win and usually did. Do we really want Maye getting the crap beat out of him as he runs for his life behind the remnants of a college offensive line like poor Jacoby did? Will this "help" him progress towards becoming an elite QB? Football, I had heard, was won in the trenches and we ain't got nobody there to compete. So why sacrifice the future for a meaningless win against another crappy football team. Let me remind you - Miami was 11-6 and lost in the Wild Card game last year, then lost their #1 high draft pick QB to injury and look at what they're like now.

So I'm watching first of all because I'm a fan of the NEP and have done so since 1973 and watched through the years even when they went 1-15 (Marc Wilson! Tommy Hodson!) and weren't much better afterwards (Hugh Millen!). As with then, I look for guys I can root for, diamonds or at least agates in the rough, some progression in where we're going, things like that. I don't recall venting angrily although I probably had a few laughs shaking my head sadly and making funny comments about the pathetic state of the team. And probably drank a lot more than I do now.

So in that vein, allow me to provide a small amount of positivity that I saw. Jacoby is who he is and we knew that already, he's there to take hits while we improve our draft position and try to get some sort of continuity and protection from the OL. He showed real toughness and leadership while trying to win against the odds. Good job buddy, and tough way to make a living but he did it like the Pro he is. No, he's not a high level QB. Were you under the impression that he was?

Marte Mapu I thought played with heart and handled a difficult task as the Defensive Captain on an undermanned side quite well, all things considered. The D played much better than they were given credit for, hard when you're out on the field being pounded for so long, you wear down. Also props to Christian Gonzalez who is a real one and future All-Pro IMHO. The Joneses played hard and well too. Not a bad performance until they broke down against the run late given the lack of Duggar and Peppers.

Rham ran hard and protected the football, showed his elusiveness and toughness again. Polk gets open and makes catches, looks like he's a keeper. Douglas had some important plays and could well have had more if our QB were a higher level one. Boutte showed up in the run and passing games. Guess they're easing Bourne back into the mix. The OL prevented anything sustainable from happening because they were just barely College level and couldn't stop committing penalties. That's clearly the thing we need to focus on fixing.

So, for me, and I understand I'm in a very small minority here, I actually enjoyed that game and watched it to the end and saw some things I can look forward to in the future - the growth of the WRs and the young guys on the Defense in particular. I'm up for trading pieces for Draft picks and I am not at all phased by losing even to teams as sad as these LOLphins were since it gives us a real leg up on the draft position. Give us a real OT or two and nobody will remember this game except for the comedy. When life gives you lemons...

Very few have the patience to watch ****ty football from their favorite team, myself included, and typically let their anger out in potentially illogical rants (oh I've had my fair share), but I'd actually bet most here understand where we're at and what's to be expected. Sometimes you just get pissed.

It's just how sports work. Look at a Celtic game day thread on Reddit. It's insane.

 

[signbabybrady]

For those wondering about Polk's play last week. That play to DK just before halftime would be a good example his toe is out by an inch no one is questioning whether his heel came down first.

 

[Ring 6]

Very few have the patience to watch ****ty football from their favorite team, myself included, and typically let their anger out in potentially illogical rants (oh I've had my fair share), but I'd actually bet most here understand where we're at and what's to be expected. Sometimes you just get pissed.

It's just how sports work. Look at a Celtic game day thread on Reddit. It's insane.

Where we are at is that we turned football operations over to new people and with an enormous amount of resources they couldn’t improve a 4-13 team.

The future of this team is in the hands of how well Wolf, Mayo, AVP and Covington do their jobs, and what sending restraints Kraft puts on them.

So far none of those things look like they are better than the competition.

 

[dliverey44]

Because the definition of the foot being in is that every part of the foot lands in bounds.
If you drag your toes the toes are in bounds, no part of the foot is out of bounds. You have “landed” the step and it’s 100% in bounds.

When the step includes both the toe and heel landing, again whatever “lands” constitutes that step and must all be in bounds.

In light of this conversation. Why was Kittles catch a TD? He dragged his toes, but in the still below as his foot kept sliding across the ground part of it went out of bounds. Maybe I don't understand the rule like I thought I did, but the toe drag is part of the "step" so wouldn't the still below make it incomplete because part of the foot is out of bounds?





I am responding to Ring because he gave me the first explanation.

 

[SEA_Pat]

Very few have the patience to watch ****ty football from their favorite team, myself included, and typically let their anger out in potentially illogical rants (oh I've had my fair share), but I'd actually bet most here understand where we're at and what's to be expected. Sometimes you just get pissed.

It's just how sports work. Look at a Celtic game day thread on Reddit. It's insane.

I suppose you're right, it's just frustrating to have to wade through what seems to be a sea of Veruca Salts.

I'm just hoping that the pressure this kind of entitled thinking has produced hasn't been what has caused them to make what seems to me to be a crazy decision to let Maye play against one of the best pass rushes in the league rather than wait a few days and do it where the fanbase is far away. I don't understand this "strategy" at all, seems like a panic move to appease these sorts of fans who are a lot noisier.