Super Bowl LIII

[naednek]

This looks like a fun job. Wonder if it pays well.

that's the dumbest thing i've seen. why not just not walk so close to the playing area.

[stessier]

Still a FG to kick and there would have been between 15-25s left on the clock. It would have been hard to win, but not over.

STOP.

Mahomes got in FG range in what, 16s? Miami won against the Pats with no time on the clock. The game wasn't over.

Your argument is more compelling with stuff like the questionable "roughing the passer" penalty awarded to the Pats because someone breathed in Brady's direction. That blown call impacted the game but didn't decide it. The call in NO absolutely decided that NO wouldn't win the game right then. They still COULD have won the game, but they shouldn't have been put in that position on such a clear, textbook example of defensive pass interference. This wasn't a tacky, could go either way call. The defender knew he was beat, so he intentionally hit him as hard as he could before the ball got there, to save the TD (his words, not mine). Even when you are "letting them play", you MUST call that flag. They didn't, and they changed the outcome of the game.

The no-call was horrible. NO should absolutely be upset about it. But there was still a chance the Rams could have won. That's all I'm saying.

[TheMix]

Apparently I don't understand what happened well enough. Wouldn't the PI penalty have given the Saints a 1st and goal? (I didn't watch the game or read up on it - obviously.)

[Ralph-Wiggum]

It would have. So the Saints could have potentially run all but 15-20 seconds off the clock and kicked a FG. Or they would have three more chances to score a TD. Either way, the Rams would have been in a much worse position.

[stessier]

It's also possible they would have gotten to the 1-yard line and attempted a throw on a quick slant.

[GungHo]

One call(or missed call in this case) doesn't decide a game, but it can certainly ruin it.

Looking forward to the day our AI overlords implement computer refs

It clearly did in this case. If the call was made the game would have been over.

How many plays were run in that game? 120ish? NO had plenty of other chances to change the outcome. I'm well aware that they shouldn't have had to if the zebra does his job but he didn't. That's sports.

I get it. I've essentially stopped watching sports because I hate officiating that much. They ruin the game. Ruined. Past tense.

[noxiousdog]

One call(or missed call in this case) doesn't decide a game, but it can certainly ruin it.

Looking forward to the day our AI overlords implement computer refs

It clearly did in this case. If the call was made the game would have been over.

How many plays were run in that game? 120ish? NO had plenty of other chances to change the outcome. I'm well aware that they shouldn't have had to if the zebra does his job but he didn't. That's sports.

I get it. I've essentially stopped watching sports because I hate officiating that much. They ruin the game. Ruined. Past tense.

I see.

So if we're playing chess and I cheat on one move, that's ok since you had all the other moves to beat me?

[gameoverman]

In football I think there are times when the game didn't hinge on one play, so a person could say a team had a 'chance' to win. Other times it's clear that ONE play did decide who won or lost. I don't see how any football fan, someone who has watched at least a few games, would think a pass interference call on that Saints/Rams play wouldn't have resulted in a Saints win. Theoretically if the Saints had been able to continue that drive, yes it's possible the Rams win anyways. It's possible in the same way it's possible aliens might land on the White House lawn and give us advanced tech so we can join the interstellar community of FTL travelers.

It's not a case of the Saints not doing their part because they were driving the ball downfield, deep in the Rams' side of the field, at the end of the game. That's a winning action, they couldn't do more than that. It's not like they were stuck back at their own 10 yard line and needed the pass interference call to even get in field goal range. They did their part.

[El Guapo]

I think stessier's just saying that the Saints would've had a 99.9% chance of winning under the correct call, as opposed to a 100% chance. Don't think there's much more to it than that. It's about as close to a "you get to go to the Super Bowl and not you" call as you'll ever see, in any event.

Anyway, we should be talking more about how great the Patriots - Chiefs game was. No doubt there is a recency bias effect here, but I think that game might crack my top 5 favorite Patriots wins.

[stessier]

Every week following a win, Belichick breaks down plays from the game. This week's has an interesting look on how the same play can be used to get various people open. Really interesting if you like to see the strategy behind the play calls (jump to 2:45 if you just want to see all the variations on the stacked receiver play).

[gameoverman]

I think stessier's just saying that the Saints would've had a 99.9% chance of winning under the correct call, as opposed to a 100% chance. Don't think there's much more to it than that. It's about as close to a "you get to go to the Super Bowl and not you" call as you'll ever see, in any event.

Anyway, we should be talking more about how great the Patriots - Chiefs game was. No doubt there is a recency bias effect here, but I think that game might crack my top 5 favorite Patriots wins.

I think what made that a great game was it developed into one of those games where the last team with the ball is going to win. Unless it's a 10-3 game or something, those kinds of games are always exciting. I don't know about other fans, but I constantly look at the game clock trying to guess how many possessions each team might have left. At a certain point you realize one team is the unlucky one who won't see the ball again.

[EvilHomer3k]

I think stessier's just saying that the Saints would've had a 99.9% chance of winning under the correct call, as opposed to a 100% chance. Don't think there's much more to it than that. It's about as close to a "you get to go to the Super Bowl and not you" call as you'll ever see, in any event.

Anyway, we should be talking more about how great the Patriots - Chiefs game was. No doubt there is a recency bias effect here, but I think that game might crack my top 5 favorite Patriots wins.

I think what made that a great game was it developed into one of those games where the last team with the ball is going to win. Unless it's a 10-3 game or something, those kinds of games are always exciting. I don't know about other fans, but I constantly look at the game clock trying to guess how many possessions each team might have left. At a certain point you realize one team is the unlucky one who won't see the ball again.

That is also what made that game terrible. It was essentially decided by a coin flip. There is no way that game would not have been better had it followed college rules for OT. As it stands, I don't think we found out who the better team was. Just the luckier team.

[Isgrimnur]

Pro Football Talk

As Michael David Smith wrote earlier today, since the overtime rule was changed for the 2011 postseason, eight playoff games have gone into overtime. Five were decided with a touchdown on the opening drive.
...
In the NFL, 52.7 percent of teams winning the overtime coin toss (and receiving) win the game at some point in overtime, according to Ross Tucker of SiriusXM NFL Radio. In college football, the team that wins the coin toss (and defers) wins 54.9 percent of the time.
...
The bottom line is: No overtime format is perfect. Nor will everyone agree on the best one. That’s why the NFL’s competition committee might choose to do nothing when it discusses its overtime rules.

[RunningMn9]

Yeah, Ross’s point is that in college, the winner defers so that they have more information at their disposal when they get the ball, which gives them an even greater advantage.

A 52.7% advantage is probably as close as you’re going to get to fair. Play defense if you have to. It’s also part of the game.

[Skinypupy]

I don’t think I’ve ever bothered to watch a Pro Bowl. Turned it on this afternoon because I was super bored.

Has it always been this weird “touch football in pads” thing, or is that a recent development?

[RunningMn9]

Yes. Football is not a game you can play at a professional level by assembling a group of random players and letting them “practice” a few times. As for the touch nature of the game, that depends on who shows up. I doubt Brian Moorman thinks of it as touch football (google Sean Taylor Brian Moorman).

But yeah, it’s a light-hearted exhibition.

And as bad as it usually is, it’s ratings still double the Stanley Cup finals.

[Jaymon]

I like watching the pro bowl, but not because its good football. I watch it for entertainment value. I get a kick out of seeing people play different positions.

[Jaymon]

here is my take on "a single play decides the game"
the game is long, and there are many opportunities. If you say "we would have one if we made that last second field goal" then here is an alternate view. Unless every single possession resulted in a score, that last second field goal attempt is not the deciding factor. Every time you punted or turned over. Every time you field goal instead of touchdown. Those are the factors that decide the game. If you had made the third down conversion and went into for a score at the beginning of the first quarter, then you would be ahead not behind, and a last second field goal at the end of the fourth would be irrelevant. Or whatever the "single play that decides the game" happens to be.

In short, the summation of all plays decides the game, there is no single play deciding the fate of the game.

[TheMix]

That's apples to oranges. This isn't the case of the players not doing their jobs, not "getting it done". This is an outside party changing the course of the game. It seems pretty unfair to make the claim that the team should have just performed better elsewhere in order to anticipate the refs not making an obvious call. The team was getting the job done. They likely would have won the game had the refs made the call. Seems like it is pretty fair to say that the non-call changed the outcome of "the game that the teams played at that time".

[Jeff V]

If you had made the third down conversion and went into for a score at the beginning of the first quarter, then you would be ahead not behind, and a last second field goal at the end of the fourth would be irrelevant. Or whatever the "single play that decides the game" happens to be.

In short, the summation of all plays decides the game, there is no single play deciding the fate of the game.

This is not accurate. The plays called subsequent to your presumed first quarter success would be different, because the game situation is different. There are days when your team is so much better and that success could lead to a blowout. There are other games (such as this particular game) where the game is managed to give your team a final game winning drive. It does not follow that scoring more points in the first quarter means a commensurate advantage late game. It could have very well ended up just the same with NO adopting a more conservative approach and the Rams a more aggressive game plan given the situation at any given moment.

[Jaymann]

If you had made the third down conversion and went into for a score at the beginning of the first quarter, then you would be ahead not behind, and a last second field goal at the end of the fourth would be irrelevant. Or whatever the "single play that decides the game" happens to be.

In short, the summation of all plays decides the game, there is no single play deciding the fate of the game.

This is not accurate. The plays called subsequent to your presumed first quarter success would be different, because the game situation is different. There are days when your team is so much better and that success could lead to a blowout. There are other games (such as this particular game) where the game is managed to give your team a final game winning drive. It does not follow that scoring more points in the first quarter means a commensurate advantage late game. It could have very well ended up just the same with NO adopting a more conservative approach and the Rams a more aggressive game plan given the situation at any given moment.

+1
Every play changes everything that happens after that. This is the same fallacy I hear in baseball where a runner makes an out trying to steal second, and the next batter hits a home run. "He would have scored had he not been thrown out." Bzzzzzt. There is no guarantee the home run would still have been hit.

[The Meal]

Jaymann vs. Jaymon. FIGHT!

[noxiousdog]

here is my take on "a single play decides the game"
the game is long, and there are many opportunities. If you say "we would have one if we made that last second field goal" then here is an alternate view. Unless every single possession resulted in a score, that last second field goal attempt is not the deciding factor. Every time you punted or turned over. Every time you field goal instead of touchdown. Those are the factors that decide the game. If you had made the third down conversion and went into for a score at the beginning of the first quarter, then you would be ahead not behind, and a last second field goal at the end of the fourth would be irrelevant. Or whatever the "single play that decides the game" happens to be.

In short, the summation of all plays decides the game, there is no single play deciding the fate of the game.

While you can't often point to a single play, not every play is created equal. There is the concept of "high leverage situations" which occur when one (or more) plays can dramatically change the expectation of winning or losing. You see this in baseball with relief pitcher management or bringing a starter back on short rest. In basketball it happens when fouling toward the end of the game, and all timed sports with clock management.

[LawBeefaroni]

Thing is, there are random elements and mistakes in sports since they are played by and officiated by human beings. The best team doesn't always win. They often lose.

The NFLs biggest problem is that they are fighting these facts tooth and nail. But they are inevitable and all fighting that hard does is make it even more obvious. Sometimes you just have to trust the rules you already have, however imperfect, and let the chips fall where they may. Or invent a new sport.

I love football but it is getting really hard to watch.

[Jeff V]

One thing you can do is have a replay official monitoring every play. On an obviously questionable call, he can signal for an official timeout to review with the referee. I don't see the sense of having types of calls that cannot be reviewed when a badly blown call makes the officials and league look bad. On the vast majority of plays, the replay official will not signal for a time-out.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday that the league’s competition committee will consider the prospect of making pass interference calls subject to review by instant replay, but he stopped short of declaring that he favors such a change to the sport’s replay system.
...
The tumult over the interference non-call in the final two minutes of regulation has continued into Super Bowl week. Goodell made the NFL’s first public acknowledgment that the call was erroneous.

“It’s a play that should be called,” Goodell said.

Al Riveron, the NFL’s senior vice president of officiating, admitted to Saints Coach Sean Payton after the game that interference should have been called against the Rams’ Nickell Robey-Coleman for an early hit on the Saints’ Tommylee Lewis. Robey-Coleman also was fined for an illegal hit on Lewis on the play that went uncalled.

Goodell said he subsequently spoke to Payton, a member of the competition committee. He said he understands the frustration of the Saints and their fans. He also defended the league’s decision not to make a public acknowledgment of the officiating mistake earlier.

“That’s our process,” Goodell said.

Goodell noted that the competition committee in the past has been against making judgment calls such as pass interference subject to replay. But he said the league still must consider potential changes.
...
The NFL rule book empowers Goodell to overturn the result of a game or to order all or part of a game to be replayed for an extraordinarily unfair act. But the rule book also says the commissioner will not take such action based on a complaint by a team over a judgment call by the on-field officials. Goodell cited that clause in the rule book, saying he was not authorized to act in this case.

[TheMix]

"a judgement call" ... um, is that what they are going with? The refs saw the play and made a judgement call? Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt.

[Jeff V]

"a judgement call" ... um, is that what they are going with? The refs saw the play and made a judgement call? Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt.

A bad judgement call is, nevertheless, a judgement call.

[stessier]

"a judgement call" ... um, is that what they are going with? The refs saw the play and made a judgement call? Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt.

I don't understand. What do you think happened?

[TheMix]

Fine. Technically every call is a judgement call. Frankly I really don't feel like debating it.

The receiver doesn't make a catch? Ref calls it a fair catch. Judgement.
Field goal is 10 yds wide? Ref says "looked in from my angle". Judgement.

At some point you have to acknowledge that the call is flat out wrong. It's not a case of "could go either way... we'll err on the side of the ref". It's wrong. If you start allowing everything to be 100% "a judgement call", then what's to stop refs from accepting bribes to throw games? After all, every call is just their "judgement".

[Jaymann]

Technically, it's a judgment call.

[TheMix]

Technically, it's a judgment call.

Noted.

[stessier]

Technically, it's a judgment call.

Noted.

I thought you were suggesting a conspiracy theory, so thanks for the clarification.

[TheMix]

Technically, it's a judgment call.

Noted.

I thought you were suggesting a conspiracy theory, so thanks for the clarification.

I can only assume that this is meant to be funny in some way. But I clearly missed the point. To me it only seems like more snark.

[Isgrimnur]

Dictionary

Though judgement (with an e) has risen and fallen in popularity in British English, judgment remains the preferred spelling in British legal proceedings and appears more frequently in written work. Today, judgement is an accepted spelling in British English. But, if you stick to judgment, you won’t be judged in the UK or the US.

[Jaymann]

I just remembered judgment, because I got corrected by a judge somewhere.

[stessier]

Technically, it's a judgment call.

Noted.

I thought you were suggesting a conspiracy theory, so thanks for the clarification.

I can only assume that this is meant to be funny in some way. But I clearly missed the point. To me it only seems like more snark.

I'm sorry, I'm being serious. I thought you were suggesting there was some conspiracy when you said "Riiiiiiight." I live in a very conspiracy minded region.

As noted, they are all judgment calls. Some are right and some are wrong. I don't think anyone here is saying it was the right call.

[TheMix]

Conspiracy? That's ridiculous. But it clearly is a cop-out by the commissioner. He just didn't want to have to deal with the issue so he fell back on that clause. Which, as people were quick to point out, is semantically completely worthless. But as I am in the minority here, and everyone else is satisfied that justice was done, I'll drop it.

[El Guapo]

To be fair, it would take serious stones to overturn the result of a championship game, even if the call is blatantly wrong. I feel like that wouldn't happen unless the winning team was somehow implicated in the bad call (e.g., they bribed the ref or something).

[morlac]

It was a bad no call but one of many made during the game. I do not want perfect robot/review able referees. The pace of the game sucks already and micro analyzing every play won't help. PI is known as "judgment" call because it is not generally a black and white call. They can not call PI as the rule is written or games would take 9 hours. Much like holding, PI occurs on almost every play. The idea is to call it when has direct negative impact on the play. In this instance they completely blew it. However, if we reviewed that same play with the idea of calling fouls that were missed during the action, one could have easily called holding and illegal hands to the face on the Saints. The left tackle grabs the DE's face mask and pulls him into the guard. Pretty blatant holding/illegal hands call they missed on the same exact play. The right guard also put his hands on the DT's face mask but that one was missed as well. You can not start reviewing all these or the game will suffer. Shit happens but let's not overreact to one bad no call.