Definitely easier to say after the fact watching film, and its pretty much counter to the training they give DBs - which is to hack at the ball in the end zone - but if he'd basically just run through Cooks instead of leaping and hitting him in the head, there's probably no way Cooks gets both feet inbounds cleanly and holds onto the ball. Cooks had contact with the ball before Moore got there, so there's no way it would have been DPI (I don't think not-leaping would have gotten Moore there much earlier).It was interesting to read Corey Moore's (#43) quotes after the game saying that he should have/could have pushed Cooks out of bounds. Did he mean taking a DPI? Because it looks like he was just a bit late getting there, and anything sooner would result in a penalty. I guess he could have timed it just perfectly, and hit Cooks out of bounds before he got his feet set. Easier said while looking at the replay.
If I were a secondary coach (and there are a myriad of reasons I'm not lol) I'd be thinking about teaching my guys to catch / bear hug the receiver on these plays (and jump balls) and just carry them out of bounds.Definitely easier to say after the fact watching film, and its pretty much counter to the training they give DBs - which is to hack at the ball in the end zone - but if he'd basically just run through Cooks instead of leaping and hitting him in the head, there's probably no way Cooks gets both feet inbounds cleanly and holds onto the ball. Cooks had contact with the ball before Moore got there, so there's no way it would have been DPI (I don't think not-leaping would have gotten Moore there much earlier).
Edit: there's also a chance that had he hit Cooks in the lower body, it would have basically sent him cartwheeling (which clearly looks bad) and he would have got called for something.
Pretty sure you'd get flagged for both pass interference and unsportsmanlike conduct, which results in 30 yards and a "do it again and you're ejected" warning from the refs.If I were a secondary coach (and there are a myriad of reasons I'm not lol) I'd be thinking about teaching my guys to catch / bear hug the receiver on these plays (and jump balls) and just carry them out of bounds.
Hell, someone like Browner was strong enough to catch them at midfield and carry them out of bounds.
Another day I'll share more dumb ideas about secondary technique
Edit: Picture it, just like they used to send Moss in to defend the hail mary. Super Bowl: 1st and goal from the 5ish, 5 seconds left in the game, BB thinks they are going throw a fade/jump ball. Sends in a Vince Wilfork type to just catch the receiver on the way down and walk out if bounds with him to end the game. It would be glorious
Why DPI if he catches the receiver on his way down from catching the ball? Where in the rules dies it say you have to let the receiver come down with the ball?Pretty sure you'd get flagged for both pass interference and unsportsmanlike conduct, which results in 30 yards and a "do it again and you're ejected" warning from the refs.
Though you would have made a terrific secondary coach in the 60s and 70s, so long as you could also teach the clothesline tackle and the "accidental trip".
Finally, a game cannot end on a defensive penalty so your edit, while fun to think about, would also not fly. That said, I've always wondered why the Hail Mary defense doesn't include the usual punt team gunners lined up opposite the WRs on the outside. That still leaves the defense with a numerical advantage downfield, and the offense with two less potential targets.
At about 1:40 of that clip I think you hear the Texans' radio announcer saying, in frustration, "How do they do it?"Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.
Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.
There should have been 15 extra yards added to the Amendola catch because there's a clear facemask as well.Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.
Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.
No penalty for pushing the receiver out of bounds after catching. It's just a difficult play to execute due to the timing and the athleticism of today's receivers.Why DPI if he catches the receiver on his way down from catching the ball? Where in the rules dies it say you have to let the receiver come down with the ball?
Not being obtuse, just assuming you know more and can explain it.
Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. It is not necessary for the player to maintain control of the ball when he lands out of bounds
From the opposite angle, which is in that Turning Point video, it doesn't look as bad.That's pretty much the same type of blow, in the act of trying to make a play, that Charles Woodson committed on the Tuck Rule play
Yeah, makes sense there would be something to prevent someone from carrying a receiver a long way, just didnt know what specific rule it might be found under. You can just catch and immediately tackle a receiver on the sideline before they come down in bounds, just very tough to execute.No penalty for pushing the receiver out of bounds after catching. It's just a difficult play to execute due to the timing and the athleticism of today's receivers.
Carrying the receiver from the hashmark to the sideline, one of the scenarios outlined upthread, would almost certainly result in the play being deemed a catch, and probably also a 15 yard penalty on the defender. It's not something we're ever likely to see, but it's sometimes fun to think up these hypotheticals.
EDIT: From Rule 8, Section 1 of the NFL Rule Book:
I think because the DB was making a play on the ball it isn't PI. Both players have a right to the ballAm I crazy for thinking there should've been a PI call on the almost interception to Cooks? He basically goes through Cooks to make a play on the ball but nobody has talked about it and the announcers didn't mention it, so it's left me doubting myself.
How does that square with the removal, a few years ago, of the "forced out" part of the catch rule? I thought that now, to be ruled a catch, the receiver has to touch inbounds with possession (and then maintain it after hitting the ground) regardless of whether a defender is hitting them to push them out. If I'm not mistaken, in one of the Pats-Ravens playoff games, maybe an AFCCG, there was a major play that turned on a receiver getting forced out, or nearly so, by the defender. My understanding of the rule today was that the defender can force an incompletion by hitting a receiver post-catch but pre-feet-touching, if it forces them to land out of bounds.No penalty for pushing the receiver out of bounds after catching. It's just a difficult play to execute due to the timing and the athleticism of today's receivers.
Carrying the receiver from the hashmark to the sideline, one of the scenarios outlined upthread, would almost certainly result in the play being deemed a catch, and probably also a 15 yard penalty on the defender. It's not something we're ever likely to see, but it's sometimes fun to think up these hypotheticals.
EDIT: From Rule 8, Section 1 of the NFL Rule Book:
This is exactly it. It's very similar to Butler's SB-winning INT. In both cases, the defender actually made contact with the receiver prior to touching the ball, but because the defender had a straight line clear path to the ball, while the receiver also had a straight line clear path to the ball, and both those lines collided together, while going for the ball, it's not PI.I think because the DB was making a play on the ball it isn't PI. Both players have a right to the ball
Generally, it's the receiver's responsibility to get both feet inbounds. The rule change was put in place as it was basically impossible to determine if the receiver's own momentum caused him to fail to keep both feet inbounds (in which case it would be incomplete), or if it was due to the actions of the defender (completion under the old rule, incomplete under the new).How does that square with the removal, a few years ago, of the "forced out" part of the catch rule? I thought that now, to be ruled a catch, the receiver has to touch inbounds with possession (and then maintain it after hitting the ground) regardless of whether a defender is hitting them to push them out. If I'm not mistaken, in one of the Pats-Ravens playoff games, maybe an AFCCG, there was a major play that turned on a receiver getting forced out, or nearly so, by the defender. My understanding of the rule today was that the defender can force an incompletion by hitting a receiver post-catch but pre-feet-touching, if it forces them to land out of bounds.
So the question here is a reductio-ad-absurdam to that - hitting a receiver post-catch, but carrying them some distance out of bounds. Obviously a hit that redirects their path to the ground is different than physically supporting their weight and taking steps, but according to what you just quoted, even the former would be ruled a catch. So which is it?
Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.
Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.
As stated above, carrying a player out of bounds wouldn't be any kind of foul, but it would be an awarded catch. 3-7-3:Why DPI if he catches the receiver on his way down from catching the ball? Where in the rules dies it say you have to let the receiver come down with the ball?
Not being obtuse, just assuming you know more and can explain it.
Yeah, I wondered why Amendola didn't say somethnig to the official he handed the ball to, then I thought he must be thinking - no, they've just made a big gain, no time to waste on the clock, need to get on with it and finish the job. But the defender pretty much took his helmet off.There should have been 15 extra yards added to the Amendola catch because there's a clear facemask as well.
Tom Curran wrote an article about this after the Super Bowl. The Pats have had some ridiculous comebacks given the probabilities.I assume that all these Win Probability Charts are based on the 1000s of games in the NFL where a team was down by 5 with 2:38 to play and only 20% won.
Patriots are doing their best to break the WPC every week.
They basically are not like any of the other 1000s of teams to have ever played because Brady is basically unlike every other QB ever to play.
Someone needs to do a Patriot Win Probability Chart. "In games the Pats are down by 5 with 2:38 to play the Patriot Winning % is 68%."
That is a fun read.Tom Curran wrote an article about this after the Super Bowl. The Pats have had some ridiculous comebacks given the probabilities.
edit: linky
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/new-england-patriots-super-bowl-comeback-atlanta-falcons-was-more-probable-not
It's not nonsense, it's a theoretical analysis. Further, because a touchdown is worth so many points, a single one can have dramatic effects, which is significantly different than just a solo home run.Win probability in the NFL is nonsense - its a problem that is much more complicated than win probabilities in baseball, and they're working with 1/10th the yearly data, in a sport where the rules change much faster.
Its theoretical analysis that's typically built on prior success rates, which in the NFL we're talking about tiny tiny sample sizes, in which most of the samples are of unlike quality.It's not nonsense, it's a theoretical analysis. Further, because a touchdown is worth so many points, a single one can have dramatic effects, which is significantly different than just a solo home run.
You're right. It's still a fun exercise and analysis to look at. It's not like they are trying to cure cancer and accuracy is vital.Its theoretical analysis that's typically built on prior success rates, which in the NFL we're talking about tiny tiny sample sizes, in which most of the samples are of unlike quality.
That 20% chance to win on the 25 with 23 seconds left probably has error bars that extend all the way from 0% up to >50%.
Win probability makes sense in baseball, where the value of specific game situations is easily calculated, players skills are easily described numerically, and we have sample sizes that are huge. In football, where we can statistically describe almost nothing, only have 256 games a year, and can really only accurately use a sample of about 5 years before we encounter a significantly different scoring environment, Win Probability is more assumptions and guesses than it is actual data.