Can someone help me with the 4th down reversal?

[cba fan]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

How so? The issue wasn't the whistle; it was the ball placement. They're separate issues. 

when Patriot knees were down he had the ball in his body short of the line to gain.

Just like you agreed on my WR example. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by cba fan

[PolishDave]

And also notice no call on the chop block to Kyle Williams from # 69 and # 71

 

(also caught on video)

 

Cheating Patriots continue their cheating ways.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, cba fan said:

when Patriot knees were down he had the ball in his body short of the line to gain.

But while in the grasp the ball had extended beyond the first down marker. It wasn't as if he extended while free of Patriot contact. The fact that he did it willingly is what I think is confusing people - if a Bills player had pushed visibly the arm back, we wouldn't be having this debate because it'd self-evident that progress had been "pushed" back.  But it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant where his body is being tackled. The only that is relevant is that he's being tackled while extending the ball. 

[row_33]

why are people wasting time arguing this?

 

they just make up whatever they want to on replay in every sport, constantly avoiding what is clearly in front of them

 

 

 

[cba fan]

Just now, dave mcbride said:

But while in the grasp the ball had extended beyond the first down marker. It wasn't as if he extended while free of Patriot contact. The fact that he did it willingly is what I think is confusing people - if a Bills player had pushed visibly the arm back, we wouldn't be having this debate because it'd self-evident that progress had been "pushed" back.  But it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant where his body is being tackled. The only that is relevant is that he's being tackled while extending the ball. 

just like you agreed in my WR ex you spot the WR on the 20.

[GoBills808]

10 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. I had no problem with that reversal. The other one was ridiculous, however.

No, no, no. There's nothing to disagree with here. The line to gain was the 25. The ruling on the field, confirmed by measurement, was SHORT. Maybe the sticks were on one side of the white line at the 25 and maybe they were on the other side of the white line at the 25...regardless, call on the field was SHORT. Measurement was SHORT. There is nothing in the replay (and that is the best view) that provides indisputable video evidence that the call on the field should be overturned...you simply cannot say with certainty that he gained the first down. The referees in that game did not understand the fundamental standard, and apparently neither do you, of the burden of proof necessary to overturn a call on the field: INDISPUTABLE. That we are disputing it right now should be a clue that a reasonable person would definitely have a problem with that call being overturned.

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, cba fan said:

just like you agreed in my WR ex you spot the WR on the 20.

No I didn't. This is apples and oranges. The whistle wasn't the issue in the play we saw, and it would have been in the one you describe. Moreover, the play you're describing has a player exiting the grasp. That never happened on the actual play we're talking about. Your example doesn't apply.

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

No, no, no. There's nothing to disagree with here. The line to gain was the 25. The ruling on the field, confirmed by measurement, was SHORT. Maybe the sticks were on one side of the white line at the 25 and maybe they were on the other side of the white line at the 25...regardless, call on the field was SHORT. Measurement was SHORT. There is nothing in the replay (and that is the best view) that provides indisputable video evidence that the call on the field should be overturned...you simply cannot say with certainty that he gained the first down. The referees in that game did not understand the fundamental standard, and apparently neither do you, of the burden of proof necessary to overturn a call on the field: INDISPUTABLE. That we are disputing it right now should be a clue that a reasonable person would definitely have a problem with that call being overturned.

The ball crossed the white line, and he wasn't down. The view from the other side indicated that the knee didn't touch. The other call was a terrible overturn, however.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The ball crossed the white line, and he wasn't down. The view from the other side indicated that the knee didn't touch. The other call was a terrible overturn, however.

The white line is 6 inches wide. The ball did NOT 'cross' the 25, in goal-line parlance it would not have broken the plane. It MAY have gone halfway onto the 25 yard line stripe, it may have gone 65% of the way through the 25. Whether the sticks were in the exact middle of the 6 inch line, at the beginning, or at the end of it is what the measurement after the ball is spotted is for. After measurement, the call was ruled short. As there's nothing to indicate that the ball made it past the sticks...no indisputable evidence.  

[cba fan]

12 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

No I didn't. This is apples and oranges. The whistle wasn't the issue in the play we saw, and it would have been in the one you describe. Moreover, the play you're describing has a player exiting the grasp. That never happened on the actual play we're talking about. Your example doesn't apply.

The ball crossed the white line, and he wasn't down. The view from the other side indicated that the knee didn't touch. The other call was a terrible overturn, however.

no no no.

 

The whistle was not an issue in my WR example. You brought the whistle into this I did not.  It did not blow in my ex. 

 

Just like it did not blow in the 4th and 1.

 

Just like a player getting tackled forward and stretch's the ball out ahead of him as he is going down, the ball is placed WHERE the ball is when his knees are down. Everytime.

Edited December 27, 2017 by cba fan

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

If he's being touched (and he was in the grasp of a defender throughout the process), then the forward progress is where the ball got to at its forward most point before he comes down. Which makes it a first down.  Let's do a thought experiment: how would you have reacted if the Bills were on the offense there and Shady wasn't given the first down? I personally would have been apoplectic.

I tried to research this issue in the nfl rule book and couldn't find anything definitive that was pro-first down or pro-bills ball.  Admittedly I get bored pretty quick, so I didn't dig too deeply into it, and the danger can be reading what someone else might say on a message board and tking that as gospel.

 

My issue was the overturn of the spot. On this view, the only logical answer is "inconclusive".  I never saw the other sideline shot that showed he was clearly on his feet or on his knees, but to be honest I don't see how any view could have been conclusive.  There are too many bodies in the way to definitively say what legs belong to what players, the RB has two legs of his own so maybe one is down and on is up--and the spot on the field by the official on the scene was what it was.  If this was the only complaint I had with replay or the pats (or using your example it went against LeSean), I could live with it, but it's just one symptom of a larger problem.  The KB play shows pass int and some real creative video review to come to the conclusion that with 100% certainty KBs foot was off the ground. Absurd.

 

 

[TC in St. Louis]

I was watching with the Bills Backers of St. Louis, and during the timeout declared that when we returned the Pats would have the ball and the first down.  People thought I was nuts, but you could see the guy stick the ball forward after he was tackled.  Just like the TD called back.  I told the group that the touchdown would be nullified.  How did I know this?  Come on.  We all know what's going to happen when we play the Pats.  It's called "Bohica."  

[Ray Finkel]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

 

You call that 'indisputable'?

They also spotted the ball on the other side of the yardline.  Should have been measured for the first.

[Shaw66]

Here's something I wrote in the thread about the Benjamin catch, because a discussion broke out there about the 4th and 1.  

 

The rules are clear.   You don't get forward progress when you're the one who moves the ball backward.   

 

Here's what I wrote there:

 

Here are some things from the NFL rules:

 

"A Running Play ends: (a) When the ball is declared dead; (b) When a runner loses or relinquishes possession by a Fumble or a backward pass; or (c) When a player of either team throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage or when there is not a line of scrimmage.

 

"(d) The Dead Ball Spot: The spot at which the ball became dead."

 

"FORWARD PROGRESS. The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent."  (note that this rule could be written more clearly, but we know what it means - the offense gets the benefit of forward progress if the defense pushes the ball carrier back, but the offense DOES NOT get the benefit of forward progress if the offense retreats from the forward progress point.  Otherwise every time a ball carrier gave up yards the ball would be declared dead and he couldn't advance it. )

 

"A Down is a period of action that starts when the ball is put in play (3-2-3) and ends when the ball is declared dead (7-2-1)."

 

"ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down. (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends."

 

Okay, you have to put all of that together.  Fundamentally, the spot of the ball is the place where the ball is where the ball is declared dead.  The exception is forward progress, which makes the spot of the ball the farthest forward point to which the ball carrier had moved the ball before the ball carrier is pushed back by the defense.  The ball is dead when the runner is down or the ref otherwise declares the ball dead.  

 

On the play in question, the ball carrier clearly thrust the ball forward and then pulled it back - he didn't keep his arms extended.   So the ball going backward was not caused by the opponent, the Bills, moving it back.   Now, I'd have to see it again - it may be possible that the Bills pushed him back some, but most of the movement of the ball backward was caused by the ball carrier, not the Bills.

 

So the question becomes where was the ball when the ball carrier's knee or other part of his body (except feet and hands) touch the ground?   Or, if they didn't touch, where was the ball when some official stopped the play.   If either of those events happened at the exact instant the ball carrier reached the ball forward, then he gets the spot as far as he extended the ball.  But if either of those events happened at any other time, he doesn't get the spot based on the reach.  

 

I don't think it was possible in the replay to determine when the knee or some other part of the body was down.  I never saw a clear view of that actual touching.   So you can't possibly overturn the call on the field by ruling that the knee was down at the exact instant necessary to give the ball carrier the full extension of his reach with the ball.   If there isn't conclusive evidence that his knee touched at exactly the right time, you can't overturn the call on the field.  

 

If the play ended because the ref blew the whistle at the absolute exact instant when the ball was at its farthest forward point, then the spot is there.   I don't recall a replay where you could hear the whistle, but I'm pretty sure the whistle came AFTER the ball had reached out and pulled back.   So the play didn't end with the ball at the farthest forward point, it ended later, after the ball carrier had retreated from the farthest point forward, so the ball has to be spotted where the ball was after he pulled it back.  

 

Breaking the plane is irrelevant here.  Breaking the plane applies only at the goal line, because as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play is over.  (The ball is dead "when a touchdown, touchback, safety, field goal, or Try has been made."   "A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone.")  So the ball is dead when the ball gets to or past the goal line, and the play is over.  But in this case the ball isn't dead until the knee is down or the ref says it's dead, and it's almost certain that neither of those things happened at the exact instant when the ball carrier had pushed the ball forward to its farthest point.   

 

Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.  

 

[billykay]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

It was definitely right to reverse that call; he had gotten the first down. Not even really debatable, actually.

Not really: they spot it where he caught because he's getting pushed back by a defender immediately after he catches the ball. What the officials do on those plays is the right thing. His forward progress stops at the moment that the tackle process begins. It doesn't stop at the end of the tackle process.

What about when the receiver catches the ball while in the air and is beyond the line of gain, but lands short of the 1st down & is then tackled. The refs always give the 1st down. I thought that it wasn't yet a catch till he gets his feet down.

[GoBills808]

^I think Shaw66 right. Breaking the goal line plane of the end zone creates a dead ball situation, which is why when Cam Newton reaches the ball out over the line his forward progress makes the play a TD...because the play stops (dead ball) once it breaks the plane of the goal line. No such dead ball rule in the field of play stretching for a first down unless you're down by contact (and Lewis wasn't yet, still no knee down), so unless you're being pushed or carried backward (and Lewis wasn't, he was just being tackled)...the ball isn't dead (and thus marked accordingly) until he hits the ground, which IIRC is AFTER he stretches toward the 25. 

 

Plus I think it's far from conclusive that even with the stretch he got there.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Semi-related note about the markers. Who's saying they can't cheat?  In the Second Jets game... I saw a Jets coach kick the marker closer.  I was literally screaming at the TV.  Of course I am nuts.  But, it was plain as day what he did on the sly!

 

Who's watching this asylum?

 

Anyway, carry on.

[The Wiz]

49 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.  

 

Unless of course, you're playing in New England.

[Shaw66]

23 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Unless of course, you're playing in New England.

You know, I really don't buy all this NE conspiracy stuff, but I will admit that the evidence keeps piling up.  

 

It's POSSIBLE that the whistle blew or his knee touched or he was pulled back at the EXACT instant that the ball carrier reached full extension of the ball, but I don't see how anyone could know any of that from the replays.   I really believe they forgot that breaking the plane doesn't apply in this case.   

 

But I also believe the people reviewing the play also assume the Patriots will make the play they need, so when they saw the ball touch the plane, they immediately thought "there you go, the Patriots did it again!" and forgot to think about what the rule actually is.  

[dave mcbride]

2 hours ago, cba fan said:

no no no.

 

The whistle was not an issue in my WR example. You brought the whistle into this I did not.  It did not blow in my ex. 

 

Just like it did not blow in the 4th and 1.

 

Just like a player getting tackled forward and stretch's the ball out ahead of him as he is going down, the ball is placed WHERE the ball is when his knees are down. Everytime.

This is wrong. Look at the replay in this thread again. Regardless of the poor view from that side re: the knee being down or not, it's clear as day that his body was being pulled back by defenders after he lunged forward.  That is, he didn't retreat on his own. Just as importantly, there is no point in that long portion of the play where he is free of a defender's grasp. The play you described had a player escaping the grasp - hence its lack of relevance to this debate. 

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

This is wrong. Look at the replay in this thread again. Regardless of the poor view from that side re: the knee being down or not, it's clear as day that his body was being pulled back by defenders after he lunged forward.  That is, he didn't retreat on his own. Just as importantly, there is no point in that long portion of the play where he is free of a defender's grasp. The play you described had a player escaping the grasp - hence its lack of relevance to this debate. 

Now that I look more carefully, I think you're correct.   First, it's clear that his elbows bend and he pulls the ball back.  But the instant before his elbows bend you can see his helmet moving backward.   So I'd have to say that based on the rule, he gets his forward progress, which was the farthest point he reached with the ball.  If the Bills hadn't pulled him back, he wouldn't get his forward progress.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Now that I look more carefully, I think you're correct.   First, it's clear that his elbows bend and he pulls the ball back.  But the instant before his elbows bend you can see his helmet moving backward.   So I'd have to say that based on the rule, he gets his forward progress, which was the farthest point he reached with the ball.  If the Bills hadn't pulled him back, he wouldn't get his forward progress.  

but even then, the issue is still "is it conclusive?"  and getting back to TPegs point if you have to look at it 30 times they are kind of missing the point about "conclusive". someone made a call on a close play, and it could have  been called either way, and both sides coukd complain they got screwed. When it happens 2x in one game, it's fair to question whether or not it's bad luck or something nefarious. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[LABILLBACKER]

It just doesn't matter anymore if a large group of owners doesn't call foul on the NFL for blatantly favoring the anointed NE Patriots. It's been going on  since the Tuck rule game. The Patriots are Gold to the NFL as long as Brady suits up.

[cba fan]

OK you win.

 

In my WR EX the WR never escaped the grasp he just pulled back and defender had not yet tackled him. Do you spot it at the 40 or the 37?

 

the 4th and 1 is inconclusive. The guy had a finger over the end of the ball. It may have never made the part of the white line that we do not know where on that white line is the actual line to gain as they never spotted and measured.

Edited December 27, 2017 by cba fan

[Rochesterfan]

28 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

This is wrong. Look at the replay in this thread again. Regardless of the poor view from that side re: the knee being down or not, it's clear as day that his body was being pulled back by defenders after he lunged forward.  That is, he didn't retreat on his own. Just as importantly, there is no point in that long portion of the play where he is free of a defender's grasp. The play you described had a player escaping the grasp - hence its lack of relevance to this debate. 

 

 

I agree - as much as I hate it - I thought they got it correct in the game and the video shows it.

 

If he had not been getting tackled and dove and brought it back. - there could be an argument, but he extends and you see him still extended and his body is moving backwards (grasp and control) - then he bring the ball back to him.  

 

I think they got it right and because of the view it was easy to see he is passed the line.   

 

The WR example given has no bearing because it is a totally different situation and if a guy on his feet breaks control and runs backward they mark where he is down, but if he is controlled and breaks free, but the defenders maintain contact working him backwards-many time they still give him forward progress to the original spot.

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, cba fan said:

OK you win.

 

In my WR EX the WR never escaped the grasp he just pulled back and defender had not yet tackled him. Do you spot it at the 40 or the 37?

 

the 4th and 1 is inconclusive.

No, unfortunately it isn't inconclusive.   At the instant the ball reached the farthest point, you can see his head going backward and then the ball starting to move backward.   You also can see a Bill who looks to be pulling him back.   The rule is clear - when he's moved backward by the opponent, he gets his forward progress, and his forward progress was at or over the line to gain.   First down. 

[cba fan]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

No, unfortunately it isn't inconclusive.   At the instant the ball reached the farthest point, you can see his head going backward and then the ball starting to move backward.   You also can see a Bill who looks to be pulling him back.   The rule is clear - when he's moved backward by the opponent, he gets his forward progress, and his forward progress was at or over the line to gain.   First down. 

The guy had a finger over the end of the ball. It may have never made the part of the white line that we do not know where on that white line is the actual line to gain as they never spotted and measured.

Edited December 27, 2017 by cba fan

[Nick the Greek]

When he lunged forward, someone should have knocked the ball out of his hands. You are really exposing yourself lunging like that. 

[row_33]

They just call whatever they want to with replay

 

why bother arguing or trying to come up logic or application of the rules?

 

 

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, cba fan said:

The guy had a finger over the end of the ball. It may have never made the part of the white line that we do not know where on that white line is the actual line to gain as they never spotted and measured.

Fair enough.  I'll give you that at least they were supposed to have spotted and measured.   But I think it was pretty clear the ball had gotten to the line to gain. 

1 minute ago, Idandria said:

When he lunged forward, someone should have knocked the ball out of his hands. You are really exposing yourself lunging like that. 

Yes, but somebody had to be in position and had to react very quickly.  The ball wasn't out there very long.  

[westerndecline]

26 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It just doesn't matter anymore if a large group of owners doesn't call foul on the NFL for blatantly favoring the anointed NE Patriots. It's been going on  since the Tuck rule game. The Patriots are Gold to the NFL as long as Brady suits up.

Here's something even more nefarious and darker what if the whole Brady becoming a great player was plan from the get-go after 9/11 the Patriots and Tom Brady win multiple Super Bowls...

 

Sounds silly but really makes you think especially when Brady was nothing more than a solid Big Ten quarterback who was constantly pushed by Drew Henson at Michigan

Looking back on that 2001 Super Bowl that New England Patriots team had no f****** business beating that Rams team no f****** business

18 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

No, unfortunately it isn't inconclusive.   At the instant the ball reached the farthest point, you can see his head going backward and then the ball starting to move backward.   You also can see a Bill who looks to be pulling him back.   The rule is clear - when he's moved backward by the opponent, he gets his forward progress, and his forward progress was at or over the line to gain.   First down. 

Me it's conclusive that the Buffalo Bills player is actually pulling them back or is he is his head just going back as a natural response because he's pulling the ball back on his own the very fact that were talking about it means it's inconclusive and stand is called

[KW95 - JA17]

24 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Here's something even more nefarious and darker what if the whole Brady becoming a great player was plan from the get-go after 9/11 the Patriots and Tom Brady win multiple Super Bowls...

 

Sounds silly but really makes you think especially when Brady was nothing more than a solid Big Ten quarterback who was constantly pushed by Drew Henson at Michigan

Looking back on that 2001 Super Bowl that New England Patriots team had no f****** business beating that Rams team no f****** business

Me it's conclusive that the Buffalo Bills player is actually pulling them back or is he is his head just going back as a natural response because he's pulling the ball back on his own the very fact that were talking about it means it's inconclusive and stand is called

 

My dad says the same thing about all sports...That its all politically related. I told him kindly to shut the hell up.  You do realize that Pats got their break just like Giants had a miracle Cath, the Seattle player had a miracle catch and then the interception and  last year Julio Jones also had his miracle catch as well on the sideline that iced the game.

 

I had a friend who played in the NHL. Ask him if he's 2 shot knees and shoulders were all politically induced.

[Shaw66]

28 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

 

Me it's conclusive that the Buffalo Bills player is actually pulling them back or is he is his head just going back as a natural response because he's pulling the ball back on his own the very fact that were talking about it means it's inconclusive and stand is called

I don't think his head going back that far is a "natural response."  His entired torso had to move, and since he was lying top of other players he didn't have his legs under him to push himself back.  And why would he be pushing himself back, anyway.   He was pulled back at exactly the right time; split second sooner and his arms don't get out there, split second later and he would have pulled the ball back first, in which case his forward progress would have been behind the line to gain.   

 

Patriots luck.  

[westerndecline]

4 minutes ago, KW95 said:

 

My dad says the same thing about all sports...That its all politically related. I told him kindly to shut the hell up.  You do realize that Pats got their break just like Giants had a miracle Cath, the Seattle player had a miracle catch and then the interception and  last year Julio Jones also had his miracle catch as well on the sideline that iced the game.

 

I had a friend who played in the NHL. Ask him if he's 2 shot knees and shoulders were all politically induced.

I'm consistent to this isn't just about bashing the Patriots that 2007 Super Bowl was total b******* Patriots should have blown them out

[KW95 - JA17]

Can someone help me with the 4th down reversal?

Well, it was 4rth and 1 and the Pats went for it.  The Bills stopped them short but the Pats challenged the call.  Upon further review, the Refs decided he reached the first down marker.

 

Thats about it.

[Chris66]

Just watching Turning Point on Nfl Network. They just showed that play. As Lewis is falling forward with ball extended, he is being pulled back looks like # 22 Lewis then lands on Thuney. So forward progress was given.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Chris66

[peterpan]

10 hours ago, CLTbills said:

The bigger issue to me was this. 

 

In no replay that CBS showed did any camera angle show the first down sticks. They didn't even place the ball and freaking measure. Just automatically awarded them the first down.

More evidence the fix was in!!

6 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

If he's being touched (and he was in the grasp of a defender throughout the process), then the forward progress is where the ball got to at its forward most point before he comes down. Which makes it a first down.  Let's do a thought experiment: how would you have reacted if the Bills were on the offense there and Shady wasn't given the first down? I personally would have been apoplectic.

Sorry but you are incorrect, that's not the rules. 

 

I would have been fine with a no first down for the bills, as it wasn't a first down.  I know the rules, and that's that. 

[Chris66]

7 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

 

You call that 'indisputable'?

Actually yeah once you time up this angle with cbs's angle

[Iron Maiden]

The 4th down reversal was a good call.....I will go to my grave thinking we got robbed on the KB TD......

[Rochesterfan]

5 hours ago, westerndecline said:

 

Me it's conclusive that the Buffalo Bills player is actually pulling them back or is he is his head just going back as a natural response because he's pulling the ball back on his own the very fact that were talking about it means it's inconclusive and stand is called

 

 

If you watch it - he starts to move backwards and both arms are still extended.  It is not really that inconclusive- the forward progress was correct and the shot goes right down the yard marker and you can easily see the first down marker is right at the front of the white line and the ball gets to and just passed the white.

 

What I do not know is if that is the official sticks or if the official sticks were on the other side.  If those were the official sticks - then I can see the first down call without measuring.  My only other issue is knowing if we are at a slight angle, but I believe the view from the other side looked just about the same - so I think he put forth amazing effort and got to the mark and I do not think this was any kind of call to help the Pats win - It was a great effort by an individual player.

[row_33]

Playing Madden the other day and during an official’s replay a box popped up onscreen asking if the Pats were playing on O or D, no particular reason.