Week 10 Game Thread

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
6,003
I dunno man, you just have to wonder if Dallas would have been better off kicking the FG.
The nerds say 4 yards to go is a bit far to go for it with that "short" a FG. The data says you should be between the 40-45 to go for it in that situation...the break even point where it makes sense to go for it at the 35 yd line is 4th and 2. A FG wouldn't have ended the game though, and there was something to McCarthy knowing that his D was bound to cough up the winning TD regardless.

https://www.the33rdteam.com/breakdowns/study-fourth-down-decisions/
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,653
I couldn’t watch the end of the bills game. Just caught up. That Josh Allen fumble was some serious Joe Pisarcik shit.
Imagine how pissed we'd be if the Pats lost a game that way. That was a huge punch in the Bills balls.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,789
Imagine how pissed we'd be if the Pats lost a game that way. That was a huge punch in the Bills balls.
Vikings had that game on the prior play and the dude had a ridiculous drop (play with offsides). That was a crazy end 4th quarter and OT. Justin Jefferson was nuts in this game.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,789
I’m sure the game thread would have turned apoplectic instead of it’s usual lighthearted and cozy vibe.
it would be like the crowd in that scene in Chappelle show where he is the (unknowingly) black white supremacist and reveals himself.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,789
Need one in eastern MA. And I've been a lazy homebody since March 2020, so one a half-mile from my house or closer would be ideal.
Ha, I started my day in Woods Hole. Only gets a little bit more east than that. There is a big beautiful world out there, my man. Get after it!
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,151
Pittsburgh, PA
To be clear, I was joking when I advocated for the intentional safety. It would not have been the right play with that much time left. Which pains me, as it's one of my favorite play calls in sports.
The last situation I can recall in which the intentional safety was even worthy of discussion was the one we're all thinking of: 2003 Pats @ Denver. Which was the game that convinced me that Bill Belichick was operating on a higher plane of football existence and that I should really never question him ever again, about anything. And with one exception*, I haven't.

There, Belichick traded 2 points for about 40 yards of field position, going from a 1-point deficit to a 3-point deficit, which Brady of course then cashed in on. It's not a situation that comes around very much. You gotta be digging pretty deep into the tome of situation football to come across that one.


* 2015 AFCCG, 4th Q, not kicking the field goals. That's it.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,653
Hebert's trajectory was knocked off kilter by another Niners player just before the hit. I would have given him the benefit of the doubt (but flagged them for 15).
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,058
No. It’s not. If a RB hits a hole leading with his helmet and there’s helmet to helmet contact there is no penalty. A running quarterback is the same thing.

There can be a penalty under the new rule in that situation.

The change appears in the official 2022 rulebook, which the NFL has posted online. The rule now reads as follows: “It is a foul if a player lowers his head and makes forcible contact with his helmet against an opponent.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/08/07/nfl-quietly-tweaked-lowering-of-helmet-rule-for-2022/
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
No. It’s not. If a RB hits a hole leading with his helmet and there’s helmet to helmet contact there is no penalty. A running quarterback is the same thing.
The rule is “it is a foul if a player lowers his head and makes forcible contact with his helmet against an opponent.” Is the argument that he didn’t lower his head? Because it seemed like he clearly did to me.

Edit - I’m just talking about the penalty. Not sure about the ejection, the rules on that seem pretty byzantine and arbitrary.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,230
Somerville, MA
The rule is “it is a foul if a player lowers his head and makes forcible contact with his helmet against an opponent.” Is the argument that he didn’t lower his head? Because it seemed like he clearly did to me.

Edit - I’m just talking about the penalty. Not sure about the ejection, the rules on that seem pretty byzantine and arbitrary.
I guess lowers his helmet seems arbitrary. They were going to the ground. It wasn’t the crown of his helmet but I guess the rule doesn’t say that.