The Consequences of that Vernon Call (Analysis)

Obviously it won't matter near as much statistically (and I sort of agree with Sec that the batting play was a huge play), but the calls on 2nd and 2 and 3rd and 2 in the second half when we were up 17-3... those were the head-scratchers to me. Here was the sequence of the drive, right after we had three-and-outed New England on the first drive of the second half (which, going in, I thought would be crucial to both teams):

1-10-MIA 43 (14:10) 17-R.Tannehill pass short left to 82-B.Hartline to MIA 49 for 6 yards (37-A.Dennard).
2-4-MIA 49 (13:35) (Shotgun) 26-L.Miller left tackle to NE 46 for 5 yards (95-Cha.Jones).
1-10-NE 46 (12:52) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass short right to 42-C.Clay to NE 40 for 6 yards (50-R.Ninkovich).
2-4-NE 40 (12:08) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass short left to 26-L.Miller ran ob at NE 27 for 13 yards.
1-10-NE 27 (11:36) 11-M.Wallace left end to NE 19 for 8 yards (95-Cha.Jones). reverse
2-2-NE 19 (10:50) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass incomplete short right to 11-M.Wallace.
3-2-NE 19 (10:45) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill sacked at NE 28 for -9 yards (54-D.Hightower).
4-11-NE 28 (10:18) 9-C.Sturgis 46 yard field goal is No Good, Hit Right Upright, Center-92-J.Denney, Holder-2-B.Fields.

On second and 2 from the New England 19, we went for kill-shots. Instead of doing what had been working earlier in the game - short passing, running the ball, keeping Brady on the bench -- we tried to get the whole thing to go up not only three scores, but three touchdowns. However, both at the time and certainly in retrospect, I question(ed) the call(s). On that particular drive, we started like we had been going the first half, short pass completion. Run. On all the runs of that drive, that first 5-yard run that netted us the first down was our shortest. We threw again short to Clay for 6-yards. Then, Miller reeled off a 13-yard run. Things are looking good. We then fake a middle handoff and give the ball on an end around to Mike Wallace. Wallace didn't look great running it -- I thought there was more there -- but he gained 8 yards. All of a sudden, we're in the Red Zone piling up plays on a drive. It's second and two at the New England 19.

And that's sort of the point where we decided to go to the pass from the run, and we never really return to it... which was a culmination of events.

Wallace was probably open on the play we ran, but there was a safety, so Tannehill threw it to his outside shoulder and away. A tough catch. But... I think either Hartline or Gibson or Matthews probably make that catch. Wallace didn't. On NFL.com, they ask Michael Irvin "Should Wallace have caught that pass?" The answer to me is yes, but Irvin goes with the "Wallace is not that type of a receiver. He's a speed guy." So, apparently, Tannehill should put it right on him instead of throwing away from the on-coming safety, who did give Wallace a nice lick at the end of the play. Regardless, if that play worked and the Dolphins went up three TDs, all the rest of what we're talking about after the game doesn't even happen. I can see why Sherman thought that was a good chance, but I still didn't agree with it. Thus, we failed, and the next play, on third and two, another pretty good opportunity to run with the way things were going, we go into the shotgun to pass, and we take a nine-yard sack on a blitz play (more came after showing that weakness right there, too, so that play was a harbinger of things to come). After that, Sturgis missed the FG, so instead of going up three scores, a kick-off, and the Patriots in dire trouble, the Pats get momentum, good field position, and score five plays later.

Didn't have to be that way. The success of the first half was short passes, runs, and keeping Brady off the field. It was second and two. Our shortest run on that drive had been 5 yards. The Pats run defense was showing to be soft, both now in the middle, and off tackle as it was all day. A first down there after one or two runs, and we're probably inside the 15 with 3 new plays, and likely a chip shot field goal if somehow, the Pats man up and find a way to stop our run or short passing game. But that's not what we did. And the rest, as they say, is history. So, wheareas I can see what Sherman was going for, I kind of think the money strategy would have been to keep going with what the game plan had been to that point and was obviously working. Miller and Thomas were on their game today. Tannehill didn't have a ton of yards, but he had been pretty stellar to that point with the game plan, short-passing game, converting third downs, and generally running the team. We may have scored a TD anyway, and in doing so, would have ate up time, time where Brady would have been on the bench. Or kick a chip shot field goal where a kicker wouldn't even need to compensate for the wind.

In summary, I think if we run there, we in all likelihood win the game. We went away from what we had been doing (and never totally got a chance or just weren't able to come back to that game plan), we ended up losing. Those were the biggest plays in the game to me.

 

About the 45

 

Some very good points raised by objective, third party coaches in the wake of the Vernon call.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Odd-call-aids-Patriots-upsets-coaches.html

I agree with them. The rule should be looked at. The officials called the rule as it is written, but the competition committee needs to take a look at it in the off season and see why they're rewarding a team with 10 yards after having fumbled the football.

 

I could see the rule as just eliminating the penalty and placing the ball at the spot of the foul. What if the team that recovers it is the team that swats it? Do you not award the ball? Lots of situations there.

 

I said the same thing in another thread. IMO that would be the fair thing to do in that situation. I get why the rule is in place but the penalty for the infraction is counterproductive. Ball should be spotted at point of fumble unless there is clear evidence that the guy did what he did with the intention of swatting it away from the opponent or to advance it in his teams direction.


EDIT (I said it wrong meant to say it as Jdang said point of infraction not point of fumble.)

 

No matter what, when intention is part of the rule, it's going to be subjective. How many times we watch basketball and the ball handler throws it at the defender's feet and they call kicking. Lol.

 

It's tough to say what should happen really. What you don't want is to set up incentives for players to bat the football forward in order to prevent the other side from getting it.

They might look at a rule where if you're ruled to have batted the football forward, the other side gets the football at the spot where you batted it.

 

Absolutely. And there will always be an argument that you can't prove, PROVE, P-R-O-V-E intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe they can't. But on the field I look at a guy swatting a football open-handed from the side like that with a player from the opposing team also closing on the ball, and I don't need enough evidence there to convict the man of murder. I'm calling the rule as it's written. If Vernon had tried to come over top of the ball and trap it against the ground then pull it in towards himself, then maybe I don't call it.

 

You don't hold a trial every time you make a judgment call penalty. This isn't convicting a man of murder. The burden of proof isn't beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

Clearly, but then again you're using logic and that's frowned upon.

 

Problem with that is if a RB botches a handoff and accidentally kicks the ball forward in the process and somebody on the offense recovers it, by your rule, possession would have to be given to the defense because the ball was kicked forward. This is a sticky area where like pass interference or facemasking intent has to be judged. I think there should be some type of review process in place by the booth when its a non challengable call.

 

People would like to take the subjectiveness out of the rule. I don't think that's necessary. I think only in Miami are people really heavily of the belief that Vernon was trying to recover and not bat away the football. Others around the country believe at best it's a gray area. Phil Simms certainly seemed to believe Vernon was batting it away, but then he received texts from friends during commercial that said he was trying to recover.

I'm fine with there being a subjective aspect of the ruling.

 

Nice stats, but what's the probability of a team winning an NFL game when they give up 24 points and score 0 points in the second half? They also have two passes intercepted and lose a fumble inside their own red zone and the offensive line gives up six sacks.

I would say the probability of any team winning a game after compiling stats like that in the second half of an NFL game is pretty close to zero. The Vernon play may have affected the game at that time, but the reality is the Dolphins didn't show up in the second half of the game and that is the reason they lost yesterday.

 

I don't think it would be a big deal to eliminate the rule. I'm not sure how many guys you would see batting the ball in a fumble situation. Anyone who can reasonably bat the ball could likely just recover the fumble.

 

Right, because that bad call didn't account for 7 points and a back breaking circumstance or anything. 13 points were scored off bad calls. That's fact. The Dolphins played against two teams yesterday.

They blew the games against the Saints, Ravens & Bills.....but not the one against the Pats, that was the refs.

 

I honestly do not know, he looked like he was trying to scoop it back but it could of also been him hitting hit but trying to mask what he was doing. WRs do it all the time to draw PI calls and kickers do it when they get hit. This could of been one of those moments. My problem is how it negated a negative play and turned it into a positive gain for the Pats when it was so murky. Refs should have more leeway and it should go to a booth review.

 

These friggin crooked pieces of crap up in Boston had money on that game.

 

That too is pretty subjective. What about that point in the game made it a "big spot"? Any fourth quarter play where teams are within one score of one another could be a "big spot".

It's controversial for Dolphins fans. Not very controversial outside of that. The coaches quoted by the NFP article don't believe there's a controversy over how the rule was applied. They think the rule itself needs to be changed because the penalty ends up rewarding the team that fumbled.

 

And those people would be wrong.

 

how can you say the intent was to bat? why would vernon want to bat instead of recover? as a lineman why wouldn't your first instinct to be to recover? do you really think vernons thinking "maybe I should bat it to give them a first down?" he was being pursued and finally pushed down. could that of affected anything? of course not. It was a perfect call. gtfoh.

 

It's subjective and not worth this much argument.

First viewing of the play, I didn't see much and saw they called the penalty. I was on my feet thinking, WTF did they just call? That makes no sense. He was trying to recover the ball and accidentally knocked it away. Then I watched the replay and all I could think to myself was, you stupid son of a *****.

And I'll give you my reasons. There are really three things that showed me he was batting it.

1. His hand swiped laterally from the side instead of trying to clamp down on the ball and trap it to the ground from the top.
2. Look at the speed the ball has at soon as Vernon's hand hit it. He HIT that ball, at high speed.
3. Fingers never closed. Was open-palm the whole way. His hand never cradled it. It was a pure swipe, like swatting a fly.

 

LOL how many recievers catch a ball with their.hands perfectly closed?

it's infinitely harder to "trap" a ball after being pushed down and forward then it would be to.come from the side to bring it in.

of course it's high speed. You want him walking to try and recover?

 

Last week the Patriots lost a game when the refs made a call in OT after the Jets had missed their first FG attempt. The Jets made their second attempt and ended up winning the game. Earlier in the game, the Jets did exactly the same thing when the Patriots attempted a FG and yet the refs didn't make the call. So I guess the Patriots only lost to the Jets because of the refs last week.

The fact is that refs miss calls all the time. That is the reason instant replay started in the first place. Even after the Vernon call, the Dolphin defense could have stepped up and stopped the Patriots from scoring and they didn't. The offense also had chances in the fourth quarter and they did nothing.

So if it makes you feel better blaming the refs and not the Dolphins for the loss yesterday, so be it. Refs are human and they make mistakes. I didn't like some of the calls against the Dolphins yesterday either. I just accept that the Dolphins didn't show up in the second half and when you play as badly as the offense did in the second half of yesterdays game, you are not going to win in the NFL, bad calls or not.

 

Hell no he won't be. Bill Leavy was the ref who fvcked up in the Seattle-Pittsburgh Super Bowl, and even admitted it. He is still working in the league.

 

The consequences of the rule are extremely flawed..what an abomination of intellect formulating it and implementing it without vicariously putting it in real football situations..somebody needs to do an investigation on such incompetence.

I still believe that our overall performance and mentality was far more concerning, but I understand the POV about the change in dynamics..you simply cannot call the games outcome with an sense of predictability after that play, and that's because emotions and momentum are interwined to the outcome..

Field goal doinks off the posts, patriots move down field score TD, some will say that's execution, some will say there was an emotional letdown..

It's an emotional game, but someone has to teach this team to be more mentally tough.

 

I don't know anything about the Pats-Jets call last week, but if it was a bad call, then yes that was the refs fault.

This utter lack of logic that claims the refs can't chnage the outcome of the game is goddamned absurd. It doesn't pass any logical or rational thought test you throw at it.

The simple fact of the matter is that no team has ever played a perfect game. For that to happen, they'd have to score a TD on every first down and the defense would have to stop the other team for no gain or less every possession. Since that has never happened and never will happen, in the real world, there will be mistakes by both teams on both sides of the ball. Acting like perfection is the only way to cleanly win a game is beyond stupid into to flat out delusional territory.

We, in fact, made the play we needed to stop that drive. The refs negated that. That is simple fact.

 

Are you talking about Mario Williams stripping the football out of Ryan Tannehill's hands? Because if that's what you're talking about it seems like you must be intentionally trying to be obtuse.

 

I guess, coaches should teach their players to not go for a fumble unless they can get more than one hand on the ball.

 

I think you may need to step back from the subject and approach it some time later when your emotions are a little less hot and heavy.

Or just eat a Snickers.

 

Those two PI calls that gave the Ravens a TD were almost as bogus as the one on Wilson yesterday.