Change my mind

[thehef]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Anyway, my vote is for any unsportsmanlike conduct being the dumbest penalty. When lining up offsides you are at least trying to gain a competitive advantage, you keep pushing forward until the ref calls it. Excessive celebration or taunting is 15 yards just because you have the emotional control of a child.

My thoughts exactly ^^^ You've got to be a special kind of stupid (and/or the emotional control of a child, as stated above) to get called for this type of penalty.

While agree that the neutral zone infraction is generally a very dumb penalty, I suppose I can envision instances where the d-lineman, caught up in the anxiety and fatigue of the moment, might experience just enough disorientation or distraction to misplace himself with regards to his stance. (It also appears to me that refs give players a little leeway on this infraction. Sometimes the camera angle will clearly show that a defender's helmet or front hand-on-the-ground is a bit into the neutral zone, but it usually isn't called unless it's obvious. Makes me think that a linesman might warn the defender, "hey, you're getting pretty close to lining up in the neutral zone... might wanna watch that.")

The other dumb football penalty that sticks out, though rare, is the case of a wide receiver jumping offsides (false start). Unlike a O-lineman, that fraction of second head start that he's looking for is unlikely to break the play if he doesn't get it. When you combine that with the fact that he doesn't even need to know the snapcount - just needs to watch the ball - it is truly a boneheaded penalty.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by dkgo

The neutral zone is not that hard to understand. It is obviously not the line of scrimmage because there is one line which the offense (other than the snapper) cannot cross and a different line that the defense cannot cross. If an offensive player lines up across the tip of the ball they are getting a penalty.

Of course you guys are arguing with the guy who says tony romo is as good as aaron rodgers so beware he is just trolling.

I'm actually not trolling. I don't hold Aaron Rodgers in high regard. I'm just not impressed. If Rodgers is better it isn't by a hell of a lot. Many QBs been to one super bowl, including crap QBs.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm open to anyone correcting me in a respectful manner. But to me, the dumbest in game penalty you can commit in the major team sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS) is football's lining up in the neutral zone. All you have to do is look at the ball and be behind it a quarter inch. I can't think of any reason why circumstances would force someone to violate that rule unless someone's own teammate or a strong gust of wind shoved him forward.

Not a penalty, but one of the dumbest things I've ever seen any player ever do in all four major sports is drop the ball before crossing the endzone.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Not a penalty, but one of the dumbest things I've ever seen any player ever do in all four major sports is drop the ball before crossing the endzone.

Oooooo....that one gets me hot. You would not want me to be your coach if you ever did that.

[CBeisbol]

Venn diagram: people who think athletes getting penalties for celebrating/taunting, etc are dumb, childish, etc and people who scream at their TV's while watching sports

[thehef]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Venn diagram: people who think athletes getting penalties for celebrating/taunting, etc are dumb, childish, etc and people who scream at their TV's while watching sports

Sure. But when Joe Schmoe yells (in either anger or enthusiasm) at the TV, he might be acting emotionally but he's not making an emotion-based decision that costs his team 15 yards. There's a difference between being emotional and being an emotional idiot.

[dkgo]

Joe Schmoe isn't blowing his cool at work when he's watching TV.

Players are literally being paid not to lose those 15 yards.

[CBeisbol]

Venn diagram: people who think that Joe Schmoe screaming at his TV is, "like totally different than an athlete getting a taunting/celebrating penalty" and people who regularly scream at their TV.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Anyway, my vote is for any unsportsmanlike conduct being the dumbest penalty. When lining up offsides you are at least trying to gain a competitive advantage, you keep pushing forward until the ref calls it. Excessive celebration or taunting is 15 yards just because you have the emotional control of a child.

Just saw one in the Egg Bowl. Ole Miss player just cost his team the game w/a stupid, STUPID, STUPID excessive celebration foul. Dude needs to go into the transfer pool. He couldn't play for me again.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Just saw one in the Egg Bowl. Ole Miss player just cost his team the game

There were like 140 plays in that game
No single play wins or loses the game
Yes, some plays have bigger and smaller impacts on who wins and loses.

And really, this is more on the kicker, Logan, or the kick team, than on Moore, who got the penalty.

According to this
College kickers from 35 yards (the distance of the extra point after the penalty) make 89% of kicks.
College kickers from 20 yards (the distance of normal extra points) make 96% of kicks

The penalty on Moore cost the team about 7% probability of making the kick
The kicker missing the kick cost the team 89% probability of making the kick.

Logan "deserves" 12 (89/7) times as much "blame" as Moore.

But, the missed kick can't really go ALL on Logan.
If you divide the miss equally among the 11 guys on the field during the kick that's (.89%/11) 8% probability of making the kick for each player. So, each guy was more to "blame" than Moore.


Another way to look at it, is expected points.
At regular extra point distance the expected number of points were (.96*1) .96
At the 35 yard distance the expected number of points were (.89*1) .89

The penalty cost Ole Miss .07 points
Missing the extra point cost Ole Miss .89 points


There's no rational way to say that Moore cost his team the game (LOTS of irrational people will say that, though). Missing the 35 yard kick cost the team MUCH more than the extra 15 yards.


College football player has an emotional over reaction

He couldn't play for me again.

Dude who fancies himself a college football coach has an emotional over reaction




EDIT
Can't really blame Cobra MGR either, though. Not fully. He didn't come to this thought that Moore COST HIS TEAM THE GAME on his own. He's been fed this misinformation his whole life by uninformed commentators, sports reporters, etc...Probably he (and they) didn't have great teachers who helped him see how the things he was learning in school could (and, more importantly, should) be applied to real life.

And I can't take the credit for figuring it out. That goes to much, I don't know about smarter but, more curious people than I. I also blindly accepted the misinformation because I assumed that the people on TV and writing in the papers and magazines knew what they were talking about. And I wish I could say that when I was first presented this better information I readily accepted it. But I didn't. I thought it was ridiculous. But, I was just open minded and curious enough to eventually understand it and accept it. And who knows where that came from.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

EDIT
Can't really blame Cobra MGR either, though. Not fully. He didn't come to this thought that Moore COST HIS TEAM THE GAME on his own. He's been fed this misinformation his whole life by uninformed commentators, sports reporters, etc...Probably he (and they) didn't have great teachers who helped him see how the things he was learning in school could (and, more importantly, should) be applied to real life.

Everybody has a different interpretation of what cost someone the game, so you're never going to change any minds. Some people don't care what happened 59 plays ago and solely look at the one play that made the difference at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNQ4puNN5Q

I didn't watch the Egg Bowl so I don't know what happened, but I'll use the example above. Leon Lett IMO cost the Cowboys the game. I don't care what happened previously. It doesn't matter to me. It's not that I've been misled, it's that I look to the play that decided the contest as opposed to the overall picture.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Everybody has a different interpretation of what cost someone the game, so you're never going to change any minds. Some people don't care what happened 59 plays ago and solely look at the one play that made the difference at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNQ4puNN5Q

I didn't watch the Egg Bowl so I don't know what happened, but I'll use the example above. Leon Lett IMO cost the Cowboys the game. I don't care what happened previously. It doesn't matter to me. It's not that I've been misled, it's that I look to the play that decided the contest as opposed to the overall picture.

I mean, yeah, sure, people can choose to look at things the wrong way.

The FACT is that Ole Miss was still 89% likely to tie the game after the penalty. So, saying that the penalty cost the team the game, it just makes no sense.

And, the extra point would have only tied the game. Even if they had made it, they still would have only had something like a 50% chance of winning.

The penalty cost Ole Miss something like a (7% * 50%) 3.5% chance of winning. Missing the kick cost them a lot more.


Let's look at the Leon Lett play and see if it is similar (spoiler: not really)
The scene: Cowboys up 14-13 with 15 seconds left. Miami attempts a 41 yard field goal.

The fieldgoal is blocked. If Dallas gets the ball back, they have a nearly (but not exactly) 100% chance of winning.
If Miami recovers, they have nearly (but not exactly) a 100% chance of winning.

In this situation, the odds of the game swung wildly on the play. Dallas went from a nearly 100% chance of winning to a nearly 100% chance of losing.


Ole Miss went from like a (50%*96%) 48% chance of winning before the penalty to about a (50%*89%) 45% chance of winning after the penalty.

[dkgo]

Yeah if you want to look at one play to say it "cost them the game" that's fine, the point is that in this case people are looking at the wrong play because the missed XP cost them far more than the penalty before it.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I mean, yeah, sure, people can choose to look at things the wrong way.

The FACT is that Ole Miss was still 89% likely to tie the game after the penalty. So, saying that the penalty cost the team the game, it just makes no sense.

And, the extra point would have only tied the game. Even if they had made it, they still would have only had something like a 50% chance of winning.

The penalty cost Ole Miss something like a (7% * 50%) 3.5% chance of winning. Missing the kick cost them a lot more.


Let's look at the Leon Lett play and see if it is similar (spoiler: not really)
The scene: Cowboys up 14-13 with 15 seconds left. Miami attempts a 41 yard field goal.

The fieldgoal is blocked. If Dallas gets the ball back, they have a nearly (but not exactly) 100% chance of winning.
If Miami recovers, they have nearly (but not exactly) a 100% chance of winning.

In this situation, the odds of the game swung wildly on the play. Dallas went from a nearly 100% chance of winning to a nearly 100% chance of losing.


Ole Miss went from like a (50%*96%) 48% chance of winning before the penalty to about a (50%*89%) 45% chance of winning after the penalty.

You're taking it a step further than most people do. Lets look at the Egg Bowl first. If it is determined (not saying it is) that the FG was missed due to the penalty yardage on that particular play, then they fall a point short and lose. Everyone already knows it would have only tied. And no one knows what would happen after that. It doesn't matter if they would only have a 1% chance of winning afterwards, that missed FG ended it. In that regard, they're right. The game was lost on that missed FG.

As far as the Lett play, all he had to do is not touch the ball. Barring another miracle at the Meadowlands, Cowboys win on a knee.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You're taking it a step further than most people do.

At least one.
People should think more

Lets look at the Egg Bowl first. If it is determined (not saying it is) that the FG was missed due to the penalty yardage on that particular play, then they fall a point short and lose. Everyone already knows it would have only tied. And no one knows what would happen after that. It doesn't matter if they would only have a 1% chance of winning afterwards, that missed FG ended it. In that regard, they're right. The game was lost on that missed FG.

Well, no.
Trying to use that logic
There were still 4 seconds left
So the game was lost when one of these things happened:
The time ran out during the onside attempt
The time ran out during the last offensive play after the onside attempt (either a hail mary or kneel down most likely. I didn't watch the game).

Yes, the missed kick is the biggest play (that I'm aware of) that determined the outcome of the game. Much bigger than the penalty. But neither can really be said to have cost them the game. They still had a chance, albeit small, to win and they, like all teams, lost because of the totality of plays in the game.

As far as the Lett play, all he had to do is not touch the ball. Barring another miracle at the Meadowlands, Cowboys win on a knee.

Sure.
But the Cowboys still had a chance to win after Lett's play. They could have blocked the second attempt.
The Dolphins still could have won after the block. Dallas could have fumbled the kneel down.
Unlikely? For sure.
But Lett's play didn't end the game anymore than the penalty or missed field goal did.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Yeah if you want to look at one play to say it "cost them the game" that's fine, the point is that in this case people are looking at the wrong play because the missed XP cost them far more than the penalty before it.

The missed XP cost them the tie. The penalty cost them the XP. You can;t tell me that kick wouldn't have remained in between the uprights if they were 15 yds in. Therefore, the penalty cost them the tie. And who knows if they would have gone for 2 if not for the penalty.

And as a side note to everyone here...... I have CBeisbol on ignore for a reason. I find him to be an arrogant condescending jerk than puts the anal in analytics. So I don't ever see what he posts unless someone else quotes him. Now of course, I can't prevent anyone from quoting him. But it would be nice if anyone would refrain from defending my opinion from something he says. I don't respond to him by choice. Cause I don't give a four letter word what his opinion is and I'm not going to waste a second defending it to him. So you can let him say what he wants to say about me or my thoughts.

[thehef]

The difference between the kicker, Logan, and the idiot penalty-taker, Moore, is motivation. Logan surely tried his best, but failed, just as pretty much every player has on one occasion or another. Moore, on the other hand, made a stupid, selfish, and classless decision that cost his team 15 yards, thus making a short-but-high-pressure kick somewhat more difficult. There's a difference between trying your best and failing, and doing something beyond selfish and stupid.

Also, as far as pointing to one play that decided a game more than any other of the 150+ plays, timing is everything: At the end of a game, there's little or no time to recover from whatever happened. If Moore's moronic and classless act happens in the 2nd quarter and the extra point is missed, it's might end up being a key play, but probably not THE key play.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'm actually not trolling. I don't hold Aaron Rodgers in high regard. I'm just not impressed. If Rodgers is better it isn't by a hell of a lot. Many QBs been to one super bowl, including crap QBs.

It's almost like measuring an individual by a team metric is borderline insanity!

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

The penalty cost them the XP.

No, it didn't. It made them about 7% less likely to convert the extra point.

You can;t tell me that kick wouldn't have remained in between the uprights if they were 15 yds in.

The kick wouldn't have been the same.

And who knows if they would have gone for 2 if not for the penalty

Well, since two point conversions are successful around 40% of the time, thus, unsuccessful about 60% of the time. The penalty on Moore made his team more likely not to lose in regulation.

As I've already posted, the penalty made the extra point about 7% less likely to be successful - about 7% more likely to lose in regulation.

But, going for 2 would have made them 60% more likely to lose in regulation - but much more likely to win in regulation.

So, if not for the penalty, if they had chosen to go for two, they would have been expected to win about 40% of the time

I've already posted that their probability of winning before the extra point was around either 48% or 45%

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Ole Miss went from like a (50%*96%) 48% chance of winning before the penalty to about a (50%*89%) 45% chance of winning after the penalty.

The decision to go for 2 would have decreased the team's win expectancy from about 48% to about 40%. Whereas the penalty decreased the team's win expectancy from about 48% to about 45%

Thus, one could argue that Moore's decision to mime a urinating dog might made his team more likely to win But, it wouldn't have upset people nearly as much. Interesting that.

I find [CBeisbol] to be an arrogant condescending jerk than puts the anal in analytics.

And here I thought he wasn't perceptive.

No one likes people who are condescending.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

fool the idiot ref

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Stephen F. Austin 85, dook 83.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

The explanation is dook buys players

Or arrogant

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

. He couldn't play for me again.

I can't comment on how anal he is or isn't.


EDIT
Curious about what had happened previously that caused Cobra MGR to block me, I looked back through some of my previous posts to find this interaction

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That right there is why I can't stand the sabermetric cultists.

Of course, this was (part of) his first post in the thread

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

WAR is a human opinion whose cult followers want to proclaim is divine gospel.

Good to see he's always taken a stance against being condescending.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by thehef

The difference between the kicker, Logan, and the idiot penalty-taker, Moore, is motivation. Logan surely tried his best, but failed, just as pretty much every player has on one occasion or another. Moore, on the other hand, made a stupid, selfish, and classless decision that cost his team 15 yards, thus making a short-but-high-pressure kick somewhat more difficult. There's a difference between trying your best and failing, and doing something beyond selfish and stupid.

Careful
Cobra MGR might block you for being "condescending" if you say a someone is an "idiot.

Even though I'm the condescending one, I'll refrain from making judgments about Moore's character and intelligence and, if I'm lucky, I'll be back in Cobra MGR's good graces someday.

I agree that there's a difference between getting a taunting penalty and missing a kick.

I'm only pointing out that Moore is getting an undeserved amount of criticism for the loss.

Also, as far as pointing to one play that decided a game more than any other of the 150+ plays, timing is everything: At the end of a game, there's little or no time to recover from whatever happened.

Of course.
Win probability definitely takes the time of the game into account.
You're much more likely to win down 1 with 4 minutes left in the game than you are with 4 seconds left in the game.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I'm only pointing out that Moore is getting an undeserved amount of criticism for the loss.

What, in your opinion, would the deserved amount of criticism?