What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Miami at New England (1 Viewer)

How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.

I gave an example of when the ball is pushed forward and its not a penalty. You see it all the time. A guy rolling it forward like a bowling ball before he scoops it up, if he's even able to finally secure it. Why is that not a penalty? He's pushing it forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
If you take the subjectivity out of the call, you could make this call on almost any fumble recovery. If a player touches it and it moves forward (from his perspective) even an inch before he (or anyone else) recovers it, then he batted the ball.

Pretty silly, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
If you take the subjectivity out of the call, you could make this call on almost any fumble recovery. If a player touches it and it moves forward (from his perspective) even an inch before he (or anyone else) recovers it, then he batted the ball.

Pretty silly, right?
Exactly

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
If you take the subjectivity out of the call, you could make this call on almost any fumble recovery. If a player touches it and it moves forward (from his perspective) even an inch before he (or anyone else) recovers it, then he batted the ball.

Pretty silly, right?
If this is about the Vernon call as he was lunging for the football, he had 1 hand free, the other was tied up. He didn't scoop the ball up and chuck it forward to keep it from NE, in fact at that point there was a good chance Miami would hold them to a FG attempt as they would have been backed up. His hand never moved off the turf/grass, he was trying to corral it but he didn't have 2 free hands.

That's how it looked to me.

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
They definitely don't use it that way. The ball gets naturally batted away all the time, yet this penalty is rarely called, usually only once or twice per year and typically on a play like an onside kick where a player literally punches it out of bounds with a closed fist.

I have never in my entire life, in college or pro, seen a flag thrown for batting on a play where there was any question as to whether or not he was doing it intentionally.

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
If you take the subjectivity out of the call, you could make this call on almost any fumble recovery. If a player touches it and it moves forward (from his perspective) even an inch before he (or anyone else) recovers it, then he batted the ball.

Pretty silly, right?
If this is about the Vernon call as he was lunging for the football, he had 1 hand free, the other was tied up. He didn't scoop the ball up and chuck it forward to keep it from NE, in fact at that point there was a good chance Miami would hold them to a FG attempt as they would have been backed up. His hand never moved off the turf/grass, he was trying to corral it but he didn't have 2 free hands.

That's how it looked to me.
It turned a 3rd and 40 at midfield into 1st and 10 at the 18. You could make the argument that NE would have ended up punting.

 
Beyond the Vernon call which was horrific, the Phins got roasted on a phantom PI call, Def holding on Patterson as Dobson trips over his own feet, and it was within 5 yds of the line of scrimmage, Miami got hosed with the calls but that's why they have to eventually shoot for Pats Level calls meaning we suck so bad that the refs are not gonna help us. Brady has a built in love from the refs, we all know it. THill was shoved going out of bounds, no way was he ever gonna get a call but Brady would have drawn a flag you can be sure of it.

I'm not saying the pats won because of the refs, I'm just saying they sure helped the pats out when the game was still in the balance and we as the Miami Dolphins have to be better so we don't put it in the hands of the refs. I was shocked Miami was up 17-3 at the half, thought this was gonna be a blowout, would have preferred the blowout.

I'm sure Ross is licking Ireland's behind and rubbing Philbin saying it's OK we got jobbed and I'm telling you it goes a lot deeper than the refs today. We still gave up 6 sacks by my count? A critical one that Tannehill made into another turnover. Sacks and turnovers, were those the refs fault? 6 sacks, 3 turnovers, umpteen penalties, there's no crying here, we suck.

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
If you take the subjectivity out of the call, you could make this call on almost any fumble recovery. If a player touches it and it moves forward (from his perspective) even an inch before he (or anyone else) recovers it, then he batted the ball.

Pretty silly, right?
If this is about the Vernon call as he was lunging for the football, he had 1 hand free, the other was tied up. He didn't scoop the ball up and chuck it forward to keep it from NE, in fact at that point there was a good chance Miami would hold them to a FG attempt as they would have been backed up. His hand never moved off the turf/grass, he was trying to corral it but he didn't have 2 free hands.

That's how it looked to me.
It turned a 3rd and 40 at midfield into 1st and 10 at the 18. You could make the argument that NE would have ended up punting.
Absolutely and then it's 20-17 with 8:00 left, things weren't going our way but I at least wanted the Phins to have a chance. It was over once the Pats went up 27-17, actually it felt over once we did not make it 24-3 or 20-3, the tide turned off the Sturgis miss. Carpenter was run out of town for missing 2 big FGs last year, he then beats us last week and Sturgis had a game changing miss.

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
They definitely don't use it that way. The ball gets naturally batted away all the time, yet this penalty is rarely called, usually only once or twice per year and typically on a play like an onside kick where a player literally punches it out of bounds with a closed fist.

I have never in my entire life, in college or pro, seen a flag thrown for batting on a play where there was any question as to whether or not he was doing it intentionally.
You summed it up the best. I don't expect Pats fans to feel bad for us but that call is not made ever. And yeah, onside kicks.

 
OL looked good early. But they aren't good enough to pass protect when the defense knows they are passing. It happened in the last 3 games. We need more play action, screen, draws, etc to cover for this line. But even all that goes away when we get behind by 10. Why we stopped running Miller is beyond me. Everybody is pointing to the missed FG as the start of the downfall. Then somebody mentioned the sack before that or even the Wallace drop before that on 2nd and 2. My question is why throw down there on the 15 and 2nd and 2. Keep running it down their throat. Before we fix Tanny, and fix the passing game and the pass protection, start running the damn ball. Miller is probably our best offensive weapon. This is another game where the defense got tired because of too many 3 and outs. Rant over.

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
They definitely don't use it that way. The ball gets naturally batted away all the time, yet this penalty is rarely called, usually only once or twice per year and typically on a play like an onside kick where a player literally punches it out of bounds with a closed fist.

I have never in my entire life, in college or pro, seen a flag thrown for batting on a play where there was any question as to whether or not he was doing it intentionally.
I can't defend how they apply the rule. I read the rule and considered how I would apply it. I didn't know the wording of the rule until I looked it up today and posted about it. I frankly thought there was some kind of intent in the rule, but there isn't.

What I would do is allow batting forward as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground, to prevent dribbling and and rolling. But the rule seems like it would prevent tipping a fumble to yourself which seems like should be a legitimate athletic football play.

 
How can you conclude that he batted it forward.
I know of one way: If the ball goes forward, it's batted forward. If the ball doesn't go forward, it's not batted forward.

I like that and I think the officials use it (at least I assume so). It takes subjectivity out of the call. Why would you want subjectivity in the call? Isn't that what we want to get away from? The rule says nothing about intent.
If you take the subjectivity out of the call, you could make this call on almost any fumble recovery. If a player touches it and it moves forward (from his perspective) even an inch before he (or anyone else) recovers it, then he batted the ball.

Pretty silly, right?
Yes.

 
Why do all Patriots game threads always turn into a bad call and penalties thread?

I'm sure there were plenty of missed calls benefitting Miami. Every game has bad calls. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the call last week that gave the Jets a win in OT. A rule is a rule, even if it's never been called before.

In real time, watrching that batted ball play, I thought he tried batting it away from the Pats lineman trying to get to the recovery. I didn't know that was a penalty, and it seems like a silly rule, but it's still a rule. Phil Sims thought the exact same thing. If he was trying to corral it, and accidentally batted it forward, it's still a penalty. Guys accidentally facemask people all the time, and a flag is thrown for that too.

 
If he was trying to corral it, and accidentally batted it forward, it's still a penalty. Guys accidentally facemask people all the time, and a flag is thrown for that too.
You're kidding, right? If that were the case, there would be a flag for this on every fumble.

 
Why do all Patriots game threads always turn into a bad call and penalties thread?

I'm sure there were plenty of missed calls benefitting Miami. Every game has bad calls. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the call last week that gave the Jets a win in OT. A rule is a rule, even if it's never been called before.

In real time, watrching that batted ball play, I thought he tried batting it away from the Pats lineman trying to get to the recovery. I didn't know that was a penalty, and it seems like a silly rule, but it's still a rule. Phil Sims thought the exact same thing. If he was trying to corral it, and accidentally batted it forward, it's still a penalty. Guys accidentally facemask people all the time, and a flag is thrown for that too.
Maybe because the bad calls were at a time when the game was on the line. Too often the Pats are getting benefitted from calls. Like the helmet to helmet in the Saints game that is now not a helmet to helmet. Yep the league isn't going to fine because the helmet to helmet just wasn't there. Now if they had just figured those sort of things out during the game we would be talking about different results. I have never seen calls go so bad in one teams favor as I have the Saints /Pats game. Its been two weeks and I still cant believe it when I think about it.

 
Why do all Patriots game threads always turn into a bad call and penalties thread?

I'm sure there were plenty of missed calls benefitting Miami. Every game has bad calls. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the call last week that gave the Jets a win in OT. A rule is a rule, even if it's never been called before.

In real time, watrching that batted ball play, I thought he tried batting it away from the Pats lineman trying to get to the recovery. I didn't know that was a penalty, and it seems like a silly rule, but it's still a rule. Phil Sims thought the exact same thing. If he was trying to corral it, and accidentally batted it forward, it's still a penalty. Guys accidentally facemask people all the time, and a flag is thrown for that too.
Maybe because the bad calls were at a time when the game was on the line. Too often the Pats are getting benefitted from calls. Like the helmet to helmet in the Saints game that is now not a helmet to helmet. Yep the league isn't going to fine because the helmet to helmet just wasn't there. Now if they had just figured those sort of things out during the game we would be talking about different results. I have never seen calls go so bad in one teams favor as I have the Saints /Pats game. Its been two weeks and I still cant believe it when I think about it.
Its funny, because despite this being the mantra of every pats hater in the world, the Pats have been ####ed on at least one major call every game this year, and multiple times its been several calls.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that some key calls went against the Dolphins in this game, but they still have no one to blame but themselves for the way they imploded and gave this game away. Once they missed the FG that would have made it 20-3, did anyone really, at that point, think the Patriots weren't gonna come back and win the game? It had that feeling of inevitability to it. Sure, the batted ball penalty was rather dubious and led directly to 7 Patriots points, but if it wasn't called, I am sure this Dolphins team would have another way to screw it up. :lol:

 
Just got back from the bar...not sure where to start or if I should even nose my way thru this thread...congrads to the Pats HOWEVER that illegal touching call was about the worst I've seen, to hand the game to NE like that...MIami should blame themselves but that call and the Mike Wallace inexplicable leap and miss on the drive where we could have gone up 24-3/20-3...I've seen enough to know that we have to go thru an entire regime change. This was just a total punch n the gut although I knew we would lose today, I thought something more like 31-10 but Pats covered nonetheless.

And the cerebral Philbin, please just GTFO of Miami ASAP.
Pats fans piling in here and spewing #### like the ##### bag at the bar yesterday, please go blow it out your ### now that you all repeatedly act like ### clowns after every win. Even when we offer congrads and take ownership over the loss you still act like ##### bags.

You all prove it time and time again. To act like those calls had no impact at the most crucial parts of the game even when we are ready to shake hands after the win and simply want to discuss some of the nuances that happened within the framework of the game, seriously blow out your ### then.

 
Just got back from the bar...not sure where to start or if I should even nose my way thru this thread...congrads to the Pats HOWEVER that illegal touching call was about the worst I've seen, to hand the game to NE like that...MIami should blame themselves but that call and the Mike Wallace inexplicable leap and miss on the drive where we could have gone up 24-3/20-3...I've seen enough to know that we have to go thru an entire regime change. This was just a total punch n the gut although I knew we would lose today, I thought something more like 31-10 but Pats covered nonetheless.

And the cerebral Philbin, please just GTFO of Miami ASAP.
Pats fans piling in here and spewing #### like the ##### bag at the bar yesterday, please go blow it out your ### now that you all repeatedly act like ### clowns after every win. Even when we offer congrads and take ownership over the loss you still act like ##### bags.

You all prove it time and time again. To act like those calls had no impact at the most crucial parts of the game even when we are ready to shake hands after the win and simply want to discuss some of the nuances that happened within the framework of the game, seriously blow out your ### then.
You seem upset.

 
Clearly the Dolphins blew this game.....and I fully believe it is pretty much all on the players and coaches.

But don't sit here and tell me those calls did not help the Pats cause.

It was disgusting how bad those calls were......and how crucial they were in when they were called. They were bailed out twice which directly led to 10 points.

That is huge.

Anyway.......hopefully we get some semblence of revenge in beating the Pats (and maybe just maybe costing them some playoff seeding) when they come down here to our half empty stadium formely known as Joe Robbie Stadium.

And yes....we suck.....as usual.

 
:shrug: Not a Patriots fan, and they did get the benefit of a few calls, but the "batted" ball foul, looked like a "batted" ball foul in real time. When they slowed things down in the replay, you could get the sense the player was simply trying to grab it with his left hand, and could not bring it in. But the officials do not get the benefit of that in real-time. To them, it looked like the player was batting the ball down field, making the recovery further from the line-of scrimmage.

 
:shrug: Not a Patriots fan, and they did get the benefit of a few calls, but the "batted" ball foul, looked like a "batted" ball foul in real time. When they slowed things down in the replay, you could get the sense the player was simply trying to grab it with his left hand, and could not bring it in. But the officials do not get the benefit of that in real-time. To them, it looked like the player was batting the ball down field, making the recovery further from the line-of scrimmage.
I can't remember the last time I had ever seen that called on a play like that. It was nuts man.

 
:shrug: Not a Patriots fan, and they did get the benefit of a few calls, but the "batted" ball foul, looked like a "batted" ball foul in real time. When they slowed things down in the replay, you could get the sense the player was simply trying to grab it with his left hand, and could not bring it in. But the officials do not get the benefit of that in real-time. To them, it looked like the player was batting the ball down field, making the recovery further from the line-of scrimmage.
I can't remember the last time I had ever seen that called on a play like that. It was nuts man.
Name the last play in a game they called that on during a fumble. Anyone got that information?

 
I seem to remember a Steelers/Pats game a few years ago where they sacked Brady late, he fumbled, Polamalu intentionally batted it out of the end zone for a safety, and it wasn't flagged. In other words, that kind of thing is almost never called, even when far more blatant than what happened yesterday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
(snip)You got beat by the better team, easy as that.
I didn't feel that way watching it. Gronkowski was almost unstoppable catching the ball a few times despite 3 defenders, but otherwise I really thought the Fins were the team that played better for so much of that game.

It reminded me of oh so many Jets games where they handed the opponent the W and the folding was ridiculous, but I was surprisingly impressed with the Fins. I don't think anyone ran on the Pats like they did til the game turned. Maybe the Pats missed Mayo and there's a difference there, but still they were somewhat dominant in the run game. Tannehill threw some dopey throws that could very well have been intercepted as they were in the DBs hands, but since they weren't, he looked good too. Brady did not look good. The WRs did not get open and they sacked or hit Brady way too much.

 
Too bad you all are talking about the other batted type play, that tip for the INT was an awesome "heads up" play-one of my faves of this season

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top