21-6, 3rd and 10

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
He is assuming the miss now, but somehow if they kick one and find themselves down by 8 later, the conversion will magically be easier to make???????

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've never understood this either. I think the general 2+2 feeling is more aggressive re: going for 2 than most coaches.

The other good part about going for 2 immediately is that if you miss it, you at least have the information that you missed it. If you wait, it's not clear how much you should play hurry-up offense later in order to score a fast TD, since you don't know if the TD is going to tie the game or you'll still need an onsides kick.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
the argument for going for 1 there was there was still a lot of time left in the game, so a lot more scoring possibilities, usually coaches don't go for 2 unless they absolutely have to, ie: if they are down by 15 they will get the 7 first then the 8 every time

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, he's assuming you should always take the points and go for the 2 when you are in a situation that definitely warrants it.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is what the announcer meant. he is still wrong.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if they don't get the bullsh1t pass interference call in the end zone on this same drive, they punt and probably never get back in the game regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I missed the debate about this in the game thread, so I have to jump on this: it was a good call. The CB ran right into the WR's arms before the ball got there. He had great position and didn't need to commit the penalty to stop the pass, but he did.

I will, however, grant that the Colts got away with a blatant PI in the endzone later in the game.

[IndyGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if they don't get the bullsh1t pass interference call in the end zone on this same drive, they punt and probably never get back in the game regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I missed the debate about this in the game thread, so I have to jump on this: it was a good call. The CB ran right into the WR's arms before the ball got there. He had great position and didn't need to commit the penalty to stop the pass, but he did.

I will, however, grant that the Colts got away with a blatant PI in the endzone later in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the PI later (right after Caldwell Drop II, IIRC), but what was often overlooked was the non-PI call right before the half vs. Dallas Clark in the endzone on 2nd down. The defender clearly had his arms and nothing was called. The Wayne tripping non-call was the following play. The Wayne call could've gone either way and I wouldn't be too upset, but the Clark non-call was frustrating.

Regardless, it was probably the most evenly called Pats-Colts game I've seen to date.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if they don't get the bullsh1t pass interference call in the end zone on this same drive, they punt and probably never get back in the game regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I missed the debate about this in the game thread, so I have to jump on this: it was a good call. The CB ran right into the WR's arms before the ball got there. He had great position and didn't need to commit the penalty to stop the pass, but he did.

I will, however, grant that the Colts got away with a blatant PI in the endzone later in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Face guarding hasn't been a penalty in the NFL in a LONG time, and there was no contact made. It should not have been a penalty.

[chaseUdown]

Jeremy,

It may not say it is a penalty, but when a DB NEVER attempts to make a play on the ball they call that 99% of the time.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeremy,

It may not say it is a penalty, but when a DB NEVER attempts to make a play on the ball they call that 99% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is no contact, it is not a penalty. Period. And it is certainly not called 99% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
NFL.com's Rules School with Mike Pereira

(Dec. 5, 2001) — Got a question about an NFL rule? Mike Pereira has the answer in NFL.com's Q&A with the NFL's senior director of officiating.

3) What is the official rule against "face-guarding" when a defender is trying to break up a pass? Is there a certain amount of space he must be within of the receiver for this penalty to be called?

There is no such thing as face-guarding in the National Football League. It is legal to face-guard a receiver. In order to have pass interference you must have contact. Any act without contact is not considered a foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a more recent article, from a month-and-a-half ago:

[ QUOTE ]
Ask Jerry Markbreit
The former NFL referee answers reader questions each week during the season

Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.

Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not be a foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]

this is what the announcer meant. he is still wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that thinking you should always go for 2 every TD. Earlier in the year Parcells went for 2 to take a 3 point lead against Wash in the 2nd quarter, they missed and that point would have changed the game a ton and probably would have been the difference. If you fail you are probably going to get slammed in some way if you lose. In the first half I like going for 1, in the 4th quarter I like going for 2, if it's 4 mins left in the 3rd quarter (like it was) I really dont care either way.

[blackize]

Face guarding has been called this year