Eagles, Foles rally to stun Patriots in Super Bowl LII

I really had no dog in this fight, so to speak, and did not even hurry home (so I missed the 1st quarter.) Of what I did see, there were a few questionable calls and non-calls both ways, but most were fine. For example, the play where it looked like defensive interference on 1st glance, but really the Philly receiver was mostly just falling backwards in the end zone, was a good non-call.

Illegal formation:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/2/4/16972192/nick-foles-touchdown-illegal-formation

Per the article, it wasn’t an illegal position / line - the receiver checked with the official looking right at him B4 the play started. It also had no bearing on the play.

It WAS a brilliant play!

As for the receiver who made TWO (or maybe 2-1/2) “football moves” with the ball clearly under his control until after he “broke the plane”, what do you want? The receiver has to run at least 20 yards and tuck the ball under his jersey B4 the play would be ruled a catch?

The earlier Eagles touchdown you mention could have gone either way in review. But then again, I recall one play in particular where a Pats’ defensive back clearly hit the Philly receiver well B4 the (very catchable) ball got there.

IMO, what finally decided the game was that at the end, Brady’s longer passes lost accuracy. Why, I don’t know - it did not appear Philly’s “prevent” defense was the cause. Receivers were open - at least as or more open than several passes both quarterbacks completed earlier.

MY NFL viewership has been about 3/4 “down” this year, but I still know Brady is usually brilliant late in games, including the previous Super Bowl, of course. Not this time.

I thought if the defensive player was going for the ball and the two players collided, it was a wash. But you obviously saw what you wanted to see. I was unsure of the line-up, that’s why I asked. And the touchdown with the receiver taking two steps and then losing control after he hit the ground.....well, I was going on what the commentators said. ‘If the refs consider him (the Eagles player) as a receiver, it isn’t a touchdown. If the ref consider him a runner, it will be a touchdown’. I guess him being the receiver and then taking two steps makes him a runner and not a receiver? Ok then. I see your position on the game. Did the helmet to helmet, that wasn’t called, bother you? Because that Patriots player was Brady’s second go-to guy and BOOM, he’s out for the game. And BTW, the first touchdown, where the guy was still bobbling the ball when he exited the end zone, quote Al Michaels (who ASFAIK isn’t a Patriots fan) said ‘that isn’t a touchdown’......and when the refs called it for the Eagles, Michaels said, ‘well, in no other game would that be a touchdown’. I just think the refs bent over backwards to help the eagles because they had never won a National Championship. And they sure didn’t appreciate all the thugs calling them Brady lovers, whenever the Patriots won.

"And the touchdown with the receiver taking two steps and then losing control after he hit the ground.....well, I was going on what the commentators said. ‘If the refs consider him (the Eagles player) as a receiver, it isn’t a touchdown. If the ref consider him a runner, it will be a touchdown’. I guess him being the receiver and then taking two steps makes him a runner and not a receiver?"

Well yes, having caught the ball and running with it makes him a runner. The commentators were being stupid about this. I figured it was intentional to raise the drama.

"Did the helmet to helmet, that wasn’t called, bother you? Because that Patriots player was Brady’s second go-to guy and BOOM, he’s out for the game."

Even the announcers correctly explained that was not a penalty. It was tough to watch, but didn't break a rule.

"......and when the refs called it for the Eagles, Michaels said, ‘well, in no other game would that be a touchdown’.."

It was only doubtful, to whatever extent it was, because of the stupid ways they've been interpreting the catch rule. The NFL has already said they are going to fix that rule this off season. But even as is, it was a touchdown.

For 17 years people have been pissing and moaning that the Pats get all the calls. Last night they didn’t. That’s life. Though frankly most of the things in your complaint list it was the right call. Kind of most of the calls that have gone for the Pats the last 17 years were the right calls too. In the end the Pats lost because they didn’t execute when they needed to, benching Butler had more to do with them losing than any of those calls, with only 3 CBs on the roster having one take zero snaps is just plain a mistake, especially when it took 98% of the snaps during the season. Don’t know why Bill suddenly decided Butler stinks, but that decision caused him to play a man short and put safeties against slot receivers all night, and those slot receivers got yards and touchdowns Butler doesn’t generally allow.

1) You can't try to go THROUGH the receiver to get to the ball before the ball gets to the receiver or defender, even if you are going for the ball. (That's a big part of why Gronk is so successful -- he's so big that typical defensive backs can't get around him, either!) If both players are jumping for the ball and make "more equal" contact, that is allowed, but that was not the case in this play: All the contact was initiated by the defensive player driving into the back of the receiver a little too early, but clearly too early. That has nothing to do with "what I wanted to see", nor was there something I "wanted to see", besides an entertaining game while I ate supper!

(BTW, it appeared to me the official closest was at a bad angle, plus, in these games there is a bit of a tendency to "let 'em play".)

2) After making a football move, the receiver is then considered a runner. In this case it was catch-->partial spin-->take 2 steps more-->leap-->push ball out ahead & past the plane while firmly in hand(s). I like Michaels, but he was just as wrong as he was in some comments earlier in the year about players kneeling during the Anthem. Collingsworth - heck, he's wrong about 1/4 of the time anyway...

In the case of the Clements' catch, it looked to me like he had control, readjusted slightly, but never really lost control. Former head of NFL officiating Dean Blandino‏ said on Twitter:

Dean Blandino‏Verified account @DeanBlandino

Issue is control. Looks like he has it initially and gets both feet down in bounds. There is some movement of the ball, but don’t think enough to say loss of control. Call should stand.

I think more properly worded that would be "Issue is control. Looks like he has it initially and gets both feet down in bounds. Then there is some movement of the ball, but don’t think enough to say loss of control, B4 the next step goes slightly out of bounds. Call should stand."

I am actually slightly less sure of that, but really think it's "60/40" (leaning toward loss of control), in which case you go with the call on the field.

3) The helmet-to-helmet was explained by another FReeper, above. (I did not see that one, BTW, as I was out of the room then.) If you have a link I'm willing to take a look-see. :-)

In any case, it is still my opinion (and Brady himself seems to agree) that it was Brady's errant passes at the end that sealed the Pats' fate.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.