Celebrating what is

moretsyndrome

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2006
1,137
Pawtucket
I don’t get you guys. Nightmares about the game we won?
I still have bad dreams about The Scottish Game, when the Giants were in retrograde and Moss went once more into the breach but couldn’t quite haul in St. Crispin’s pass.
Every time I see the Brady pass right before the White TD that Vic Beasley almost tipped to himself, I start hyper-ventilating.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
32,415
AZ
Regarding the James White TD to beat Atlanta in the SB, practical question here, but they reviewed it in about 20 seconds, which is probably ridiculous, given that even those on this board have questions about his knee being down. However is it possible, that there is some silent edict from the league, or even that the league got involved in this review, and essentially said "I dont care what you see , its a TD, pack it up. There is no way we are overruling this, and spending the next fifteen minutes getting all the reporters off of the field, cleaning up the confetti, and so on, in our sports showcase game.
All scores are reviewed always automatically. It's almost always that fast. Sometimes you see them hold up the extra point for a second or two while the ref waits for confirmation, but there is no reason to think that they didn't follow their normal procedure, saw exactly what Troy Aikman saw when he said it was good when watching the first replay, and then told the refs it was good (and they told Belichick).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,620
Regarding the James White TD to beat Atlanta in the SB, practical question here, but they reviewed it in about 20 seconds, which is probably ridiculous, given that even those on this board have questions about his knee being down. However is it possible, that there is some silent edict from the league, or even that the league got involved in this review, and essentially said "I dont care what you see , its a TD, pack it up. There is no way we are overruling this, and spending the next fifteen minutes getting all the reporters off of the field, cleaning up the confetti, and so on, in our sports showcase game.
It was actually a fairly easy play to review.

First, for it to be a TD, any part of the ball has to be coincident with the goal line. The white chalk of the goal line is part of the end zone. At 0:45, you can see White's knee is down, but there what appears to be either the ball or White's arm cradling the ball underneath the Falcon's defender. At 0:55, it seems fairly clear that the ball is above the chalk while the knee is not down.

And if the evidence isn't there to overturn, the call on the field stands. Yes, 20 seconds seems absurd, but it was definitely close enough to "definite TD" to call it what it was.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
38,451
Hartford, CT
Regarding the James White TD to beat Atlanta in the SB, practical question here, but they reviewed it in about 20 seconds, which is probably ridiculous, given that even those on this board have questions about his knee being down. However is it possible, that there is some silent edict from the league, or even that the league got involved in this review, and essentially said "I dont care what you see , its a TD, pack it up. There is no way we are overruling this, and spending the next fifteen minutes getting all the reporters off of the field, cleaning up the confetti, and so on, in our sports showcase game.
I don’t know what a silent edict is, but, no, if he was down they’d overturn it. I think the NFL would care a lot more about the game ending on a preventable bad call than the hassle of pushing people off the field and cleaning up confetti.

He clearly wasn’t down, and the NFL reviews scoring plays within 20-30 seconds all the time.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,672
306, row 14
Friend of a friend type thing, but we knew someone who was involved with the company that does the confetti for Super Bowls and any other large events. Anyways, the league gives the green light on when they can dump the confetti due to potential reviews and reversals. Nothing different happens here, the play was reviewed and the league gave the confetti people the thumbs up. All happened in a manner of seconds.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
32,415
AZ
I think I noticed this live but if not definitely on replay but you can tell that the line judge isn't 100 percent sure if there might be a review. He makes his call but then goes to sort of hold his arms out to the side like he thinks there may be a review and he wants people to hold up on rushing the field because it was close and then I think he may even have a buzzer or something on his belt that he goes to -- though I'm not sure what communication they have. Anyway, he sort of flinches for a moment and then appears to be like fuck it I know what I saw and I better sell it and he puts his hands back up in a more emphatic TD signal. It is less than a second but you can tell he's having some sort of thoughts in that moment about whether there might be a review.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
54,289
San Andreas Fault
Same on Hightower. Can’t watch it without seeing it. Not sure why he was even touching him.
Without looking at it again, I think High wanted to help hold onto the ball and make sure no Seahawks hit could make it come out. It could have been a disaster, like two wide receivers colliding and the ball popping up in the air to a DB who intercepts. Wait, that's more like Julian's catch in the Atlanta Super Bowl.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,620
I think I noticed this live but if not definitely on replay but you can tell that the line judge isn't 100 percent sure if there might be a review. He makes his call but then goes to sort of hold his arms out to the side like he thinks there may be a review and he wants people to hold up on rushing the field because it was close and then I think he may even have a buzzer or something on his belt that he goes to -- though I'm not sure what communication they have. Anyway, he sort of flinches for a moment and then appears to be like fuck it I know what I saw and I better sell it and he puts his hands back up in a more emphatic TD signal. It is less than a second but you can tell he's having some sort of thoughts in that moment about whether there might be a review.
All scoring plays are automatically reviewed no matter what.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
32,415
AZ
All scoring plays are automatically reviewed no matter what.
Actually, in this context there are actually two potential levels of review. There is an initial review of all scores and then there is also the potential of "further review." I think people have been using them interchangeably in the last few posts even though I think some posters are actually talking about further review.

Anyway, there are two levels: (1) Was it good or do we need further review. If it's good, it's over. If not, they move to further review. (2) If it needs further review then the ref goes to the monitor and they do a review like we see on a challenge.

They can affirm on initial review, but they will not reverse without further review. As a practical matter on the automatic review calls -- turnovers and scores -- they are essentially making the decision with the initial review. Reversal rates on the auto review calls are extremely high when they move on the further review. But not 100 percent.

I think some of what his being discussed in the last few posts is really about further review. For example, I think GB5 may have actually been asking whether the league would have been more reticent to go to further review in that context given that the players were already all over the field. We'll never know but I very much doubt it. The league has made some extremely close calls on initial review in the past and has let stand calls that often seem like they might benefit for more time. One fast reply seemed to show the ball about half way over the line when the knee went down and that was probably good enough to quickly say that it's not worth further review.

My point was not really about that but was more about the ref's body language suggesting that he knew it was going to be very close. You don't worry about any kind of review -- initial or further -- when a guy plows into the end zone on his feet but the ref here flinches a bit and does something at his belt, which I seem to remember worried me live until they started showing the replays and Aikman said what he saw what I thought I was seeing too.
 

leftfieldlegacy

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
796
North Jersey
Actually, in this context there are actually two potential levels of review. There is an initial review of all scores and then there is also the potential of "further review." I think people have been using them interchangeably in the last few posts even though I think some posters are actually talking about further review.

Anyway, there are two levels: (1) Was it good or do we need further review. If it's good, it's over. If not, they move to further review. (2) If it needs further review then the ref goes to the monitor and they do a review like we see on a challenge.

They can affirm on initial review, but they will not reverse without further review. As a practical matter on the automatic review calls -- turnovers and scores -- they are essentially making the decision with the initial review. Reversal rates on the auto review calls are extremely high when they move on the further review. But not 100 percent.

I think some of what his being discussed in the last few posts is really about further review. For example, I think GB5 may have actually been asking whether the league would have been more reticent to go to further review in that context given that the players were already all over the field. We'll never know but I very much doubt it. The league has made some extremely close calls on initial review in the past and has let stand calls that often seem like they might benefit for more time. One fast reply seemed to show the ball about half way over the line when the knee went down and that was probably good enough to quickly say that it's not worth further review.

My point was not really about that but was more about the ref's body language suggesting that he knew it was going to be very close. You don't worry about any kind of review -- initial or further -- when a guy plows into the end zone on his feet but the ref here flinches a bit and does something at his belt, which I seem to remember worried me live until they started showing the replays and Aikman said what he saw what I thought I was seeing too.
I don't think the bolded is accurate.
If the call on the field is TD then there is always an automatic booth review to confirm the call. If that review shows that the TD call was incorrect, then the ball is placed at the spot where the runner was down and play continues. There is no second level review in that situation.
If the original call on the field is no TD then, in OT, the booth can call for further review. In a situation (not OT) where the call is no TD, the "further review" would require a coach's challenge. I don't think there are ever two reviews on the same play.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
32,415
AZ
I don't think the bolded is accurate.
If the call on the field is TD then there is always an automatic booth review to confirm the call. If that review shows that the TD call was incorrect, then the ball is placed at the spot where the runner was down and play continues. There is no second level review in that situation.
If the original call on the field is no TD then, in OT, the booth can call for further review. In a situation (not OT) where the call is no TD, the "further review" would require a coach's challenge. I don't think there are ever two reviews on the same play.
Edit — tl;dr — when it is said the booth “confirmed” a score what that actually means is the replay official has elected not to initiate video replay review

A booth “review” can never overturn a call. Technically, there is actually no such thing as a booth review. In fact, the whole idea of the booth “confirming” a call is actually wrong.

This is a little technical and pedantic, but here is the way that the rules actually work.

All plays on the field stand unless they are overturned by a video reply review.

There is only one type of video reply review. Only the senior VP of Officiating (or his delegate if not available) can reverse a call. He must do so in conjunction with communication with the replay official and the white hat ref. Once review has been initiated, the ref goes over to the monitor and speaks with the head replay official and a decision is made whether or not to overrule the call on the field by the SVP. That is the only way a call can be overturned. The booth has no power to overturn a play called on the field without a full video replay review and decision by the SVP in consultation with the ref. In other words, there is no option for the booth to say “he didn’t score, put the ball on the one yard line” without going to step 2.

There are two ways that a video replay review can be initiated. One is by coaches challenge. The other is by the replay official. The replay official can call for a replay review only in some circumstances. Overtime. Last two minutes of the half if the play started with less than two minutes. Scores called such on the field. Turnovers called such on the field. (There are also now eye in the sky obvious tweaks that are new this year but put that to the side because it confuses the discussion.)

The SVP may actually also call for a video review. Since it is his review if he is the one that calls for it there is a good chance you know what the outcome will be, but the ref maybe could change his mind at least theoretically. I think this only happens in the playoffs.

The replay official must call for replay review before the next snap. On scores the head ref will usually wait to hear from the booth whether or not replay has been requested before allowing the try. But when they say that “all scoring plays are reviewed” or that a score has been “confirmed,” this is not technically accurate. What really has happened is that the replay official has elected not to call for replay review.

This effectively may be the same thing as “confirming” or the practice may be a little different. We would have to be in the head of the replay official to know.

It is sec 15-2. https://operations.nfl.com/media/5427/2021-nfl-rulebook.pdf

Anyway, when people say “all scoring plays are reviewed,” what they mean is that the replay official may call for a video review on scores and looks at video to decide whether to do so.
 
Last edited:

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
10,763
The Yay Area
Does anyone have the most up-to-date math on the Pats vs. AFCE compared to the Pats vs. Everyone Else? I'm getting the same 'oh that division has sucked' nonsense and I'd like to nip it in the bud.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,252
around the way
Does anyone have the most up-to-date math on the Pats vs. AFCE compared to the Pats vs. Everyone Else? I'm getting the same 'oh that division has sucked' nonsense and I'd like to nip it in the bud.
If you look at the ESPN SoS numbers, it looks more like a "weak conference" thing than a "weak division" thing.

Pats SoS is slightly worse than Baltimore and Tennessee, but not noteworthy. Worse than KC and LAC, slightly better than Cin.

5/16 AFC teams have a SoS better than .500.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,789
Does anyone have the most up-to-date math on the Pats vs. AFCE compared to the Pats vs. Everyone Else? I'm getting the same 'oh that division has sucked' nonsense and I'd like to nip it in the bud.
Shouldn't the Patriots actually lose to an out of division but in conference opponent for this to hold water? I mean, if the essence of the argument is that teams like the Browns and Chargers are really good and the Pats would have a worse record if they had played them rather than the Dolphins.....

ed-since 2001

this is a little old

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Patriots/comments/ak2x21/the_only_reason_the_patriots_are_good_is_because/&data=04|01|Pierre.Mayer@haverhillpavilion.com|41567d77dbe746dff4b108d9aea800eb|707e881691534841b8eb17b974748957|0|0|637732858851183390|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0=|3000&sdata=NVt9Xl7yk21eujVYymjkc8B1UBYwzlb8AOXPQYybQTg=&reserved=0
 

leftfieldlegacy

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
796
North Jersey
Oh I meant like Since 2001
I think this is what you are looking for: Myth Buster. It was from a poster "Nikolai" on Patsfans in 2019 with data from 2002 to 2017.
I did an analysis a couple years ago analyzing each division's record outside the division if you removed the best record from within that division (i.e. to make sure the Pats' success doesn't "cloud" the AFCE numbers)

Between 2002-2017 (2017 is when I did the analysis), the best divisions (without the top team) winning percentages were as follows:

AFCE: -- .528 (New England excluded)
NFCE: -- .515 (Philadelphia excluded)
NFCS: -- .512 (Atlanta excluded)
AFCN: -- .503 (Pittsburgh excluded)
AFCW: -- .498 (Denver excluded)
NFCN: -- .490 (Green Bay excluded)
AFCS: -- .487 (Indianapolis excluded)
NFCW: -- .467 (Seattle excluded)

I recall doing another analysis showing that Pittsburgh and Indianapolis had the largest disparity of records between their own divisions and teams outside it; in other words, they feasted on their own divisions far more disproportionately than any other teams.


EDIT - Found it!

Team winning percentages against teams from outside the division:

New England: -- .769
Pittsburgh: -- .616 (not even close)
Indianapolis: -- .594
Denver: -- .581
Green Bay: -- .575
And so on...


Further, the Patriots only have 33.6% of their wins coming from inside the division.
Here's how that ranks against the top 5 teams since 2002:

Indianapolis: -- 40.6%
Green Bay: -- 38.7%
Pittsburgh: -- 35.9%
Denver: -- 35.9%
New England: -- 33.6%


EDIT 2 - Winning Percentages against teams outside the division (not including the top team in the division - again to remove "the Pats effect")

AFC East: -- .545
NFC East: -- .523
NFC South: -- .519
AFC North: -- .505
AFC West: -- .498
NFC North: -- .488
AFC South: -- .480
NFC West: -- .447
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think this is what you are looking for: Myth Buster. It was from a poster "Nikolai" on Patsfans in 2019 with data from 2002 to 2017.
This is all interesting, but I seem to recall that any way you parsed the Patriots winning record over the last 20 years, it always hovered around 75% with a SD around 5%. Home/Away; AFC/NFC; Day/night. It simply never really moved the needle much in any given direction.
 

leftfieldlegacy

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
796
North Jersey
This is all interesting, but I seem to recall that any way you parsed the Patriots winning record over the last 20 years, it always hovered around 75% with a SD around 5%. Home/Away; AFC/NFC; Day/night. It simply never really moved the needle much in any given direction.
This could be 100% accurate but it really doesn't matter. The notion that the Pats success was the result of a consistently weak AFC East has been ingrained into the fan base of every AFC team that felt that their team got screwed by this supposed advantage. It is also espoused as gospel by local and national media to explain the Pats easy path to the playoffs every season. There is really no point in using stats or logic trying to argue against it because all you'll get back is "SPYGATE"!! DEFLATEGATE"!! "CHEATRIOTS"!!.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
32,415
AZ
Edit — tl;dr — when it is said the booth “confirmed” a score what that actually means is the replay official has elected not to initiate video replay review
Apparently, the length of my post was only exceeded by its wrongness.

Looks like the eye in sky replay now permits streamlined reversals of scores and boundaries. Good improvement I think.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
9,126
And I'm here wondering who could possibly top the Patriots in fewest penalties since 2000. Maybe the Steelers with Cowher/Tomlin?

edit: okay, it's in the comments on the tweet. Indy in 1st with 1,928 penalties, compared to 1,987 for the Pats (and Jets). Pitt in 6th with 2,048. And in dead last is the Raiders with a ridiculous 2,689.
 

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,775
Brasil
And I'm here wondering who could possibly top the Patriots in fewest penalties since 2000. Maybe the Steelers with Cowher/Tomlin?

edit: okay, it's in the comments on the tweet. Indy in 1st with 1,928 penalties, compared to 1,987 for the Pats (and Jets). Pitt in 6th with 2,048. And in dead last is the Raiders with a ridiculous 2,689.
Would never have guessed the Jets as the second most disciplined team.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
38,451
Hartford, CT
The Pats have given up > 250 rushing yards in a game four times in the BB era.

They are 4-0 in those games.
I remember one of them, the 24-0 comeback v DEN in ‘13. You know, the game where Knowshon Moreno was so worked up with intensity pregame that tears were streaming down his face.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,839
Hingham, MA
2002 @ Miami
2011 @ Denver
Yeah I just researched it myself. Both memorable games. My favorite part of the Miami game was Wannstedt deciding to call three pass plays with a 3 point lead under 4 minutes to play in the 4th with the ball inside their own 5 after rushing for 250+ in the game. He was the gift that kept on giving.
 

Willie Clay's Big Play

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2017
281
Was that tactical or just poor run fits? The only chance for points the Titans had was busted coverage. Let them run the ball and lockdown a taxi squad of WRs that Tenn brought.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,839
Hingham, MA
I don't like having any messages - read or unread - in my email inbox, or on my text messages screen, etc. I delete everything almost immediately after reading