The Official Patriots vs Ravens Post Game thread

[condon84]

I disagree, because the distinction is that the DB was beaten and made contact solely to disrupt the receiver from the ball.
If the DB were in step with Boyce and were defending the pass, not the man, then it wouldn't have been a penalty. It was because he was defending the player by trrying to prevent him from his route, not defending the pass. It is a night and day difference.

We've seen Talib do this numerous times this year without the refs throwing the flag.

Do we really want the refs start throwing flags on him?

Why can't we accept that we got a favorable call?

 

[Kontradiction]

Man A going 15MPH N, turns and heads 15MPH NW. Man B going 15MPH N, reaches out and hits Man A. Man A is no longer heading NW. Incompletion.

The still above clearly shows Smith makes contact with two arms on Edelman. At that speed, that's going to stop Edelman's change of directions in its tracks, which it did.

And again, it doesn't matter how difficult a play it is for Smith. If you want to argue DPI rules are in need of rehab, I would agree with you.

Again, I'm not saying it's a GOOD CALL. But it's not something ridiculous, absurd, out of left field, egregious, life-altering call.

Now you're backtracking, BM. You stated this before...

I didn't think that the DPI that setup our TD was incorrectly called

When you state that you don't think something was incorrectly called, you're stating that it was correctly called. When you state that something is correctly called, you're stating that it was a good call. This is more evidence that you're only defending it when it went New England's way.

So let me ask you this: Do you agree that Smith had every right to look up for that ball? Once answered, do you agree that Edelman changed his course first?

 

[BradyManny]

Now you're backtracking, BM. You stated this before...



When you state that you don't think something was incorrectly called, you're stating that it was correctly called. When you state that something is correctly called, you're stating that it was a good call. This is more evidence that you're only defending it when it went New England's way.

So let me ask you this: Do you agree that Smith had every right to look up for that ball? Once answered, do you agree that Edelman changed his course first?

I don't intend to backtrack, those are poor word choices on my part. I stand by that the call was not incorrect as the rule is written and enforced. But I don't like the DPI rules, and I don't like seeing teams awarded the ball at the 1 on plays like that. But the enforcement of that rule on this play was normal and not unexpected. Nor egregious. The ref made an acceptable call.

As evidenced from the other thread, I do not have any suggestion for a better system.

Smith has every right to look at the ball, but just because Edelman is faster to track it does not mean he should be punished either. What is he supposed to do, ask Smith's permission for going and trying to catch the ball? He's already in front of him. Smith initiated contact, he stuck his arms out and prevented a guy who was playing the ball from getting to it. By your own admission, Smith was not playing the ball since he had no idea where it was headed.

 

[Ring 6]

We've seen Talib do this numerous times this year without the refs throwing the flag.

Do we really want the refs start throwing flags on him?

Why can't we accept that we got a favorable call?

I disagree that Talib has done this.
Again, the distinction is if you are impeding the receiver with no intent to defend the pass play, contact is an infraction.
Why would we 'accept' something that was called correctly is a favorable call?
We get them, this just wasn't one of them.
I would feel the same if it were called against us.
The only reason people question that call is because they don't recognize the distintion between contact occuring as a result of making a play on a pass and contact resulting from impeding the receiver from going where he wants to do.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

It's a terrible call, just as the Boyce call was terrible. Why Patriots fans can't admit that they got some breaks is probably something for the shrinks to obsess over, but bad calls are bad calls, and there have been enough of them around the league that it's inexcuseable for Patriots fans not to be able to spot them just because they involve their favorite team. It makes us look every bit as ridiculous as opposing fans claim we are.

I responded to the wrong person, I was trying to get the GIF a few pages back.

I don't really like these calls because it's like the DB has to get out of the WR's way. I guess the thinking is that if he's playing the man and not the ball he does have to avoid him. I've always thought this made it possible for a WR to manufacture a PI call like on the patented Peyton Manning chuck it short to Wayne streaking down the sideline play. Where Wayne all of a sudden stops from a dead sprint to come back and the DB chasing him runs into him.

However, I think the reason this was called where it was called may not be the bump where he tried to look for the ball and missed Edelman changing direction. I think the call may have come from the end of that play where the DB looks left, appears to locate the ball, then looks at Edelman and reaches his foot out tripping him. Can't say for sure if it was intentional because he was essentially beat, but it doesn't appear to be a case of getting feet tangled as he was playing the ball.

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't intend to backtrack, those are poor word choices on my part. I stand by that the call was not incorrect as the rule is written and enforced. But I don't like the DPI rules, and I don't like seeing teams awarded the ball at the 1 on plays like that. But the enforcement of that rule on this play was normal and not unexpected. Nor egregious. The ref made an acceptable call.

You might want to re-read the DPI rules, then, as inadvertent contact is not supposed to be penalized.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

NFL Rules Digest: Pass Interference

As evidenced from the other thread, I do not have any suggestion for a better system.

I'll at least agree with you that the system sucks.

Smith has every right to look at the ball, but just because Edelman is faster to track it does not mean he should be punished either. What is he supposed to do, ask Smith's permission for going and trying to catch the ball? He's already in front of him.

No, he's not. And this isn't the point. The contact was pretty clearly incidental. The GIF and the videos bear that out. That flag should have been kept in the ref's pocket. I'm not going to complain too hard about it because the call went our way. There have also been instances over the years where that call did not go our way and the entire forum bashed the refs over it which, again, is what you would be doing if that call were the other way around.

Smith initiated contact, he stuck his arms out and prevented a guy who was playing the ball from getting to it. By your own admission, Smith was not playing the ball since he had no idea where it was headed.

1. Smith didn't initiate that contact.

2. I never said Smith wasn't playing the ball. If you think I did, then you're welcome to cit it.

What I said was Smith was fully playing the ball but the exact trajectory of the ball is hard to pinpoint until it's about 10-15 feet from coming down. It didn't help that he had his head turned the opposite direction, then turned it in the ride direction right when Edelman changed course. His arms, as a reactionary measure, come out to brace himself once the incidental contact is made at the 3 yard line.

 

[Ring 6]

You might want to re-read the DPI rules, then, as inadvertent contact is not supposed to be penalized.

You need to reread what you posted. It says nothing about inadvertant contact. It says INCIDENTAL (which is very different) contact WHILEV PLAYING THE BALL.

No, he's not. And this isn't the point. The contact was pretty clearly incidental. The GIF and the videos bear that out.

Contact cutting off a receiver changing direction is not at all incidental.
Again, reread what you posted. Incidental contact is contact that occurs as a result of both players making a play on the pass not because you reached out to stop the guy changing direction.

That flag should have been kept in the ref's pocket. I'm not going to complain too hard about it because the call went our way. There have also been instances over the years where that call did not go our way and the entire forum bashed the refs over it which, again, is what you would be doing if that call were the other way around.

You only weaken your argument by pulling the 'what you would say in a different situation' card.

1. Smith didn't initiate that contact.

That is irrelevant.

2. I never said Smith wasn't playing the ball. If you think I did, then you're welcome to cit it.

What I said was Smith was fully playing the ball but the exact trajectory of the ball is hard to pinpoint until it's about 10-15 feet from coming down.

It didn't help that he had his head turned the opposite direction, then turned it in the ride direction right when Edelman changed course. His arms, as a reactionary measure, come out to brace himself once the incidental contact is made at the 3 yard line.[/QUOTE]
It landed 10 yards behind him and he was facing the opposite direction when contact occured.

 

[BradyManny]

No, he's not. And this isn't the point. The contact was pretty clearly incidental. The GIF and the videos bear that out. That flag should have been kept in the ref's pocket. I'm not going to complain too hard about it because the call went our way. There have also been instances over the years where that call did not go our way and the entire forum bashed the refs over it which, again, is what you would be doing if that call were the other way around.

Sure, I'll absolutely admit I would be whining about DPI rules today if the call were going against us. I'm whining about them every week. But the enforcement of those rules was justifiable. I don't think any fans enjoy seeing yardage awarded in such chunks, it's less entertaining. But does that mean the call was bad?

I'm just trying to play a middle ground here, because I think it's the right one. I mean, I was disappointed when the Boyce call was made because I wanted Brady to earn every yard in some dramatic, memorable fashion, and I felt he would've. No one likes seeing these calls decide games. But as I understand the rules, the call yesterday was okay. Maybe I misunderstand the rules. We both watch a lot of football. And I personally didn't bat an eye at the DPI call yesterday.

Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball

But how was Smith competing for the ball? Failure to compete for a ball is the same thing as making no intention to compete for the ball. Intent is not written into that rule. Smith turning his head and running in a direct line for a place where the ball is not going is the same as not playing the ball. I admit that it's a difficult play for DBs to make. But the rules favor the WRs, and that's the way it is. It isn't easy being a DB in today's NFL. Our DBs know that as well as anybody.

 

[Deus Irae]

I responded to the wrong person, I was trying to get the GIF a few pages back.

I don't really like these calls because it's like the DB has to get out of the WR's way. I guess the thinking is that if he's playing the man and not the ball he does have to avoid him. I've always thought this made it possible for a WR to manufacture a PI call like on the patented Peyton Manning chuck it short to Wayne streaking down the sideline play. Where Wayne all of a sudden stops from a dead sprint to come back and the DB chasing him runs into him.

However, I think the reason this was called where it was called may not be the bump where he tried to look for the ball and missed Edelman changing direction. I think the call may have come from the end of that play where the DB looks left, appears to locate the ball, then looks at Edelman and reaches his foot out tripping him. Can't say for sure if it was intentional because he was essentially beat, but it doesn't appear to be a case of getting feet tangled as he was playing the ball.

Unless trips are obviously intentional, they are let go as inadvertent, especially when the offensive player is cutting across the path of the defender. The officials blew the call. The Patriots were the beneficiaries. In a season full of terrible calls, this is just one of them.

There's no reason for Patriots fans to defend this call, particularly after we've seen the Patriots get hosed on calls against the Jets, Panthers and Dolphins. Three of the Patriots four losses can be laid at the feet of terrible calls/decisions by the officials, so we shouldn't be here making up ridiculous crap like claiming the DB initiated the contact, when the contact was forced by Edelman cutting across the DB's path. We should be willing to acknowledge that a terrible PI call helped in the Cleveland game and the terrible PI call currently being discussed here helped in the Ravens game. If we can't do that, we have no credibility. We become no better than the Jets fans who claim that the Patriots get the benefit of all the calls.

 

[BradyManny]

Three of the Patriots four losses can be laid at the feet of terrible calls/decisions by the officials, so we shouldn't be here making up ridiculous crap like claiming the DB initiated the contact, when the contact was forced by Edelman cutting across the DB's path.

The DBs path to where, Deus? To the middle of the end zone where the ball was not at all headed?

Both players have a right to fight for the ball. Edelman tried. Jimmy Smith did not. And he did not let Edelman. It was a call that could go either way, but come on, you're trying way too hard to make a point. Per the PI rule definition Kontra posted above, and as explained by AndyJohnson, that call is justifiable.

 

[Triumph]

There's a GIF of it on Google. There's GIF's of the whole game. There was very minimal contact on that play and Smith certainly didn't hook Edelman. The most egregious contact was his arm brushing Edelman's arm. It was just two guys looking for the ball and a tripping that occurred because they were both neck and neck going down the field and Edelman changed his direction. Shouldn't have been called.

EDIT: Here it is...

Thank you.

This was the ONLY bad call. The other calls against the Ravens were spot on despite what some people think they saw happen. They are obviously wrong since they cannot provide an ounce of proof other than it happened.

 

[oldskool138]

They did not call it in as in the end zone.

Yes they did.

 

[Triumph]

You are now defending a call you admit was bad by making up nonsense.



That's pathetic. We're done here. You should be embarrassed. As a fellow Pats fan, I'm embarrassed for you.

Comedy Gold.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There's a GIF of it on Google. There's GIF's of the whole game. There was very minimal contact on that play and Smith certainly didn't hook Edelman. The most egregious contact was his arm brushing Edelman's arm. It was just two guys looking for the ball and a tripping that occurred because they were both neck and neck going down the field and Edelman changed his direction. Shouldn't have been called.

EDIT: Here it is...

That GIF reinforces my original takeaway, which is that Smith was called because he wasn't even running to the general place that the ball was going. He was playing the man instead of the ball, and in doing so he cut off Edelman's path to the ball. It looked a lot worse at full speed, too, which is typically the case when you're railroading the receiver without even attempting to make a play on the ball.

If he'd turned his head around, seen where the ball was going, and attempted to go toward the ball, then that flag would be total BS. As it stands, it's interference by the rulebook, and I don't have a major gripe with it either way. The fact of the matter is that, when slowed down, it's still plenty justifiable. At game speed, if the receiver gets incidentally tripped while you're railroading him away from the ball and not even attempting to make a play, you're going to get flagged for that. At full speed, it looked like a slam dunk, easy call. That flag gets thrown at least 2 times out of 3.

Maybe most importantly of all, the Raven's entire offense over the past few years has been predicated on getting calls like that. They, of all teams, have no right to complain about it going the other way for once.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Thank you.

This was the ONLY bad call. The other calls against the Ravens were spot on despite what some people think they saw happen. They are obviously wrong since they cannot provide an ounce of proof other than it happened.

He disrupted Edelperson's route, it was legit.

 

[Deus Irae]

he cut off Edelman's path to the ball..

Ok, you're not even looking. Come on. That's Triumph level foolishness.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sure, I'll absolutely admit I would be whining about DPI rules today if the call were going against us. I'm whining about them every week. But the enforcement of those rules was justifiable.

No, it wasn't, as the rule I posted clearly shows.

I don't think any fans enjoy seeing yardage awarded in such chunks, it's less entertaining. But does that mean the call was bad?

No, the call was bad because both guys had their head turned looking to play the ball and the contact was incidental.

I'm just trying to play a middle ground here, because I think it's the right one.

Actually, I think you now know the call was bad, don't really care too much because the Pats benefitted from it, and yet are still trying to defend it as a good call.

I mean, I was disappointed when the Boyce call was made because I wanted Brady to earn every yard in some dramatic, memorable fashion, and I felt he would've. No one likes seeing these calls decide games. But as I understand the rules, the call yesterday was okay. Maybe I misunderstand the rules. We both watch a lot of football. And I personally didn't bat an eye at the DPI call yesterday.

But as you understand the rules doesn't matter. It's how the rule is written. I posted it before.

But how was Smith competing for the ball? Failure to compete for a ball is the same thing as making no intention to compete for the ball.

When you turn your head to look up at the ball, you are putting yourself in a position to compete for it when the ball comes down. His head was turned when Edelman made a move to do the same and altered house route so that he crossed in front of Smith, which drew the contact. As a result, the contact was incidental but was enough to trip up Edelman. Incidental contact, under the rules, should not be punished.

 

[moosekill]

I guess I have no idea what you guys are talking about. DB hit WR knocked him off course. DB wasn't going for the ball and WR had a step on him. WR couldn't adjust to catch the ball.

It is pass interference.

Should the league change the rules, perhaps. Was this a call that doesn't always get called, yes. Does that make it a bad call, no it was the correct call. I wouldn't even say this one was ticky tack, it is one I would hope wouldn't be called on the Patriots, but it is one I would say, darn I wish they had let that one go, but I wouldn't have been pissed if they had called it.

 

[Kontradiction]

That GIF reinforces my original takeaway, which is that Smith was called because he wasn't even running to the general place that the ball was going. He was playing the man instead of the ball, and in doing so he cut off Edelman's path to the ball. It looked a lot worse at full speed, too, which is typically the case when you're railroading the receiver without even attempting to make a play on the ball.

If he'd turned his head around, seen where the ball was going, and attempted to go toward the ball, then that flag would be total BS. As it stands, it's interference by the rulebook, and I don't have a major gripe with it either way. The fact of the matter is that, when slowed down, it's still plenty justifiable. At game speed, if the receiver gets incidentally tripped while you're railroading him away from the ball and not even attempting to make a play, you're going to get flagged for that. At full speed, it looked like a slam dunk, easy call. That flag gets thrown at least 2 times out of 3.

Maybe most importantly of all, the Raven's entire offense over the past few years has been predicated on getting calls like that. They, of all teams, have no right to complain about it going the other way for once.

Are you sure you're looking at the right GIF? The GIF shows the ball in the air, Smith and Edelman in a straight line, Smith's head turning to the right while catching a glimpse of the ball, turning to the left, then making a move in the direction of the trajectory of the ball while Edelman saw the ball as well and modified his route into Smith's patch which caused the incidental contact.

 

[BradyManny]

When you turn your head to look up at the ball, you are putting yourself in a position to compete for it when the ball comes down.

Turning around does not itself constitute playing the ball.

Jimmy Smith was trailing Julian Edelman, and whether he couldn't track it or didn't have fast enough hips, was on a path to nowhere that had anything to do with the ball.

He does not own the space between him and his personal path to nowhere if it intersects Julian Edelman's right to play the ball, especially given Edelman got behind him. He does not get to reach out and stop Edelman's momentum.

Jimmy Smith made a bad play and he got penalized for it. It happens.