PDA

View Full Version : Question re: Roby's 2-point conversion interception.



scott.475
01-26-2016, 11:18 PM
Here is my question: why wasn't it ruled a fumble when it was stripped from him out on the field of play? At first I thought it was because a 2-point conversion couldn't be returned by the defense, but that rule changed this year, so tje defense can actually return a conversion attempt for 2 points of their own.

So, Roby picked the ball in the endzone, ran it down the field for a bit, had it stripped by the Pats while he was still on his feet, and it was then pounced on by the Pats. Why didn't it become theirs again, at that point?

Tned
01-26-2016, 11:31 PM
It was their ball, but the recovering player was on the ground and touched down by Roby. So, that resulted in a dead ball and the 2 point try was over. I'm fairly sure that if the Pat had picked it up, and ran back towards the endzone, without being touched down, then the play would have stayed alive and if they had made it in the endzone, it would have been a 2 point conversion. However, once the player was down, the attempt was over.

As it was a two point conversion, you only get one try, so no different than an incomplete pass, or a run short of the endzone (or a missed FG if it was an extra point kick), when the Pats recovered and were touched down, the attempt was over, and they then kicked off the ball to the Broncos.

scott.475
01-27-2016, 01:07 AM
Okay, so there can't really be a change of possession on a 2-point conversion?

Actually, just as I was typing this I realized the error of my thinking. I was trying to understand it from the perspectiveif a 4th down play where, say, a ball is intercepted, then fumbled back to the original team, for two changes of possession. BUT, by the time you get to a 2 pointer, the 4th down has already been played, so it's not really a "down" at all.

Thanks Tned, just needed to bounce it off someone to flesh it out.

Northman
01-27-2016, 06:27 AM
Yea, the 2 pt play is basically a free play so once the ball was fumbled back to NE the play was over.

Tned
01-27-2016, 08:17 AM
Yea, the 2 pt play is basically a free play so once the ball was fumbled back to NE the play was over.

I think technically it was over when it was fumbled back to NE and NE was down by contact or the ball was otherwise dead. I'm fairly certain if the play had stayed alive and NE was able to take the fumble and run it into the endzone, then it would have been a successful two point conversion.

BroncoJoe
01-27-2016, 08:22 AM
I think technically it was over when it was fumbled back to NE and NE was down by contact or the ball was otherwise dead. I'm fairly certain if the play had stayed alive and NE was able to take the fumble and run it into the endzone, then it would have been a successful two point conversion.

I'm not sure - maybe Spike can weigh in - but I believe once NE recovered the fumble, the ball is dead at that spot and can't be advanced on an extra point try.

BroncoWave
01-27-2016, 08:22 AM
I think you are right Tned. Here is the rule from the official rulebook:


The Try ends when:
1. either team scores
2. the ball is dead by rule
3. a fumble by either team is recovered by a teammate of the fumbling player

So form how I interpret that, teams can fumble back and forth to each other all day and the play still lives, you just can't recover your own teammate's fumble or the play then ends.

BroncoJoe
01-27-2016, 08:27 AM
I'm not sure - maybe Spike can weigh in - but I believe once NE recovered the fumble, the ball is dead at that spot and can't be advanced on an extra point try.

Nope - I guess it could have been advanced.


5. Try from the 2-yard line. Pass is intercepted by the Bears, then fumbled, and recovered by the Packers and advanced across the Bears' goal line.

Result: Two points for the Packers.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/174752/inside-slant-everything-you-want-to-know-and-then-some-about-the-nfls-new-pat-rule

Tned
01-27-2016, 08:35 AM
I think you are right Tned. Here is the rule from the official rulebook:



So form how I interpret that, teams can fumble back and forth to each other all day and the play still lives, you just can't recover your own teammate's fumble or the play then ends.

The recovered by your own team is interesting. So, I guess if you were trying to run it in, you fumble, a team mate picks it up, he can't run it in, because the play would be dead. However, if the opposing team got control, and then fumbled, then you could pick it up and run it in.

I'm sure they put that rule in to try and avoid fake fumbles, such as fumbling into the endzone right before going down and hoping one of your team mates was able to jump on it, which would be near zero risk, because if the defense recovered it would simply be a failed two point conversion.

weazel
01-27-2016, 10:16 AM
That's probably why I was screaming at my TV for Roby to take a knee. I guess he didn't hear me, how do these damn TV's work?

CoachChaz
01-27-2016, 10:47 AM
That's probably why I was screaming at my TV for Roby to take a knee. I guess he didn't hear me, how do these damn TV's work?

Except if he were able to take it to the house, it would have been 2 points for us and forced a NE TD to win instead of a FG...had the on-side kick been successful.

weazel
01-27-2016, 10:49 AM
Except if he were able to take it to the house, it would have been 2 points for us and forced a NE TD to win instead of a FG...had the on-side kick been successful.

wasn't worth it

CoachChaz
01-27-2016, 10:52 AM
wasn't worth it

I get your point, but if he downs it...NE gets the on-side kick and gets the FG...you'd be singing a different song. Odds were much higher of that happening than NE stripping him, recovering , and running it in for 2.

weazel
01-27-2016, 10:55 AM
I dont put much stock into on-sides... I don't think they work very much. I agree that getting the two points would have made it harder for sure, but the game hinged on the on-side, not the plays after.

BroncoWave
01-27-2016, 10:57 AM
I dont put much stock into on-sides... I don't think they work very much. I agree that getting the two points would have made it harder for sure, but the game hinged on the on-side, not the plays after.

The Pats were 2/2 on onside kicks this year and would have gotten that one had keo muffed it.

weazel
01-27-2016, 11:08 AM
The Pats were 2/2 on onside kicks this year and would have gotten that one had keo muffed it.

ummmm but he didn't. And... nobody knows what would have happened if he did. you're arguing speculation

BroncoWave
01-27-2016, 11:14 AM
ummmm but he didn't. And... nobody knows what would have happened if he did. you're arguing speculation

It was like him and 5 Pats around the ball. It was super dangerous the way he charged it and touched it before it went 10 yards. That easily could have gone either way.

weazel
01-27-2016, 11:17 AM
It was like him and 5 Pats around the ball. It was super dangerous the way he charged it and touched it before it went 10 yards. That easily could have gone either way.

the ball could have exploded on the kick off too. It's all speculation

BroncoWave
01-27-2016, 11:50 AM
the ball could have exploded on the kick off too. It's all speculation

So for the record you are allowed to speculate on what might have happened on Roby's pick return, but I can't speculate on what might have happened on the onside kick. Got it.

weazel
01-27-2016, 11:59 AM
So for the record you are allowed to speculate on what might have happened on Roby's pick return, but I can't speculate on what might have happened on the onside kick. Got it.

Yes


LMAO I'm just yanking your chain, Wave. You're a good man for making my morning.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-27-2016, 12:03 PM
Roby wanted the 2 points.

NightTrainLayne
01-27-2016, 12:23 PM
The Pats were 2/2 on onside kicks this year and would have gotten that one had keo muffed it.

I was aware of this, and very worried about it.

Joel
01-31-2016, 03:28 AM
Chiming in late, but: I'm glad someone asked and others fully answered this question, because I also wondered. Under the OLD rule NE* couldn't regain possession and score, but that was because the old rule said the play ended the moment any defender gained possession. Now that it DOESN'T, it made sense that would change, but I didn't know: Now I do, so thanks, everyone.

olathebroncofan
01-31-2016, 11:23 AM
That's probably why I was screaming at my TV for Roby to take a knee. I guess he didn't hear me, how do these damn TV's work?

We must have the same tv. Hillman didn't hear me either when I was telling him to pick up the lateral in the Pats game.

UnderArmour
01-31-2016, 11:28 AM
That's probably why I was screaming at my TV for Roby to take a knee. I guess he didn't hear me, how do these damn TV's work?

That was my INITIAL thought, but once I remembered it was a two-point attempt and there was near zero risk of New England recovering the ball and running it back 40 yards to the end zone for 2 points I was screaming for Roby to go or lateral the ball or something. It absolutely was worth it, because again, New England only gets one attempt unless there was a defensive penalty on the play(Penalties applied to Denver while Roby or a Denver player had the ball would be assessed on the kickoff, because Roby becomes the offense as soon as he gets the ball). There was zero risk, so I'm not sure what your point was.

Tned
01-31-2016, 11:33 AM
That was my INITIAL thought, but once I remembered it was a two-point attempt and there was near zero risk of New England recovering the ball and running it back 40 yards to the end zone for 2 points I was screaming for Roby to go or lateral the ball or something. It absolutely was worth it, because again, New England only gets one attempt unless there was a defensive penalty on the play(Penalties applied to Denver while Roby or a Denver player had the ball would be assessed on the kickoff, because Roby becomes the offense as soon as he gets the ball). There was zero risk, so I'm not sure what your point was.

Actually, there was tons of risk. In that situation, he should have immediately taken the knee in the endzone. He was lucky in that he fumbled so far out of the endzone. He could have just as easily fumbled on the five yard line, had the ball bounce around on the ground, knocked back towards the endzone and jumped on by a Pat or fumbled at the five or ten, picked up by a Pat and run back into the endzone for a two point conversion.

Yes, he having a 104 yard return would have put the Broncos up by 4 points, which would have been much better if the Pats had won the onside kick. However, the chances of a 104 yard return in that situation are MUCH lower than him fumbling and NE getting the ball and scoring the two points.

Bottom line, it was a very bad play by Roby.

UnderArmour
01-31-2016, 03:42 PM
Actually, there was tons of risk. In that situation, he should have immediately taken the knee in the endzone. He was lucky in that he fumbled so far out of the endzone. He could have just as easily fumbled on the five yard line, had the ball bounce around on the ground, knocked back towards the endzone and jumped on by a Pat or fumbled at the five or ten, picked up by a Pat and run back into the endzone for a two point conversion.

Yes, he having a 104 yard return would have put the Broncos up by 4 points, which would have been much better if the Pats had won the onside kick. However, the chances of a 104 yard return in that situation are MUCH lower than him fumbling and NE getting the ball and scoring the two points.

Bottom line, it was a very bad play by Roby.

I still disagree. It could not have been ruled a safety unless he ran it out and tried to run back in, so the risk was minimal. Roby wasn't going to drop the ball, and if he did it would have been near impossible for New England to pick it up AND return it. In a normal situation, I'd agree. But due to the special nature of two point attempts, I felt Roby's attempt to take it out again showed his high football IQ off.

BroncoWave
01-31-2016, 04:55 PM
I still disagree. It could not have been ruled a safety unless he ran it out and tried to run back in, so the risk was minimal. Roby wasn't going to drop the ball, and if he did it would have been near impossible for New England to pick it up AND return it. In a normal situation, I'd agree. But due to the special nature of two point attempts, I felt Roby's attempt to take it out again showed his high football IQ off.

I have gone back and forth on this, but I think I've decided on just taking a knee as the play that gives us the highest win probability. At that point in the game, with a 2 point lead and less than a minute left, the only way NE is winning is if they get some sort of fluky play go their way. At the point he intercepted the pass, there are really only two avenues to NE winning. 1- Force Roby to fumble and run it in. 2- Recover an onside kick then score. By just taking the knee, he takes away one of those two possible outcomes. Returning it is a higher variance play, but in that situation, the Pats are wanting high variance. Yes there is the upside for us of going up 4, but the Pats will happily take that chance for the chance of them forcing a fumble and getting those 2 points. In the end, I think taking the knee just makes the most sense, as it takes away one of their avenues to potentially win.

Tned
01-31-2016, 07:27 PM
I still disagree. It could not have been ruled a safety unless he ran it out and tried to run back in, so the risk was minimal. Roby wasn't going to drop the ball, and if he did it would have been near impossible for New England to pick it up AND return it. In a normal situation, I'd agree. But due to the special nature of two point attempts, I felt Roby's attempt to take it out again showed his high football IQ off.

Safety? That doesn't really even come into play as one of the risks.

Roby fumbled and New England recovered. Fortunately, Roby touched down the Patriot immediately. If he takes it out and fumbles, which he did, the ball and play is still live, and a Patriot can pick it up and return it into the endzone and complete the two point try.

It's real hard to argue there was nearly no risk, when he actually fumbled the ball.

MOtorboat
01-31-2016, 07:34 PM
Meh. Roby's biggest mistake was slowing down.

Kid made a hell of a play after Talib made a hell of a play.

Joel
02-01-2016, 01:43 AM
I have gone back and forth on this, but I think I've decided on just taking a knee as the play that gives us the highest win probability. At that point in the game, with a 2 point lead and less than a minute left, the only way NE is winning is if they get some sort of fluky play go their way. At the point he intercepted the pass, there are really only two avenues to NE winning. 1- Force Roby to fumble and run it in. 2- Recover an onside kick then score. By just taking the knee, he takes away one of those two possible outcomes. Returning it is a higher variance play, but in that situation, the Pats are wanting high variance. Yes there is the upside for us of going up 4, but the Pats will happily take that chance for the chance of them forcing a fumble and getting those 2 points. In the end, I think taking the knee just makes the most sense, as it takes away one of their avenues to potentially win.
That makes a lot of sense. Intellectually, I know you're right: If you're outperforming them, don't give them a chance to screw all that up by getting lucky. It's just....

From midfield, Brady getting from midfield to FG range against a D GASSED from playing most of the second half AND missing BOTH safeties looked REALLY likely. I felt like our exhausted injury-depleted D HAD to stop the 2PAT, because if we went to OT the toss wouldn't matter: The offense that had just gone three-and-out three times straight wasn't going to score, and the D sucking its OWN thin air wasn't going to prevent a score. Better question:

Do we need a high variance SB, or to AVOID one? I still can't decide; their record and average victory margin were better, but against FAR worse teams, so who's really the best team? Also, bad line+injured Manning+NFLs best turnover differential=/=a good argument we should air it out and take our chances.

Yet I'm leaning more toward that because 1) I think they genuinely ARE better, so we need variance, 2) they won't be expecting Kubiaks run-heavy team to start an air war and 3) if we DO manage to jump out to a big early lead, their proud but inexperienced team may crumble under the pressure.

As for the 2PAT Int though, my brain says you're right even while my gut quivers at the memory: Buying a second lottery ticket is still awful odds, but TWICE as good as buying just one, and you only have to hit once. So ENDING one of two desperate chances is better than giving it back by trying to end BOTH.

Ravage!!!
02-02-2016, 10:56 AM
So going after teh ball BEFORE it goes ten yards is some how not as safe as sitting and waiting for the ball to go 10 yrds where the NE patriots can freely go after it? How is that a safer play, I want the logic on that one.

BroncoWave
02-02-2016, 12:53 PM
So going after teh ball BEFORE it goes ten yards is some how not as safe as sitting and waiting for the ball to go 10 yrds where the NE patriots can freely go after it? How is that a safer play, I want the logic on that one.

It looked like the ball was kicked so softly it wasn't going to go 10 yards. I'm ok with pouncing on it once it's gone 8 or 9 yards, but 5 is just too soon. Now thankfully it worked out, but if he muffs that ball, the 10 yard rule goes away and any of the 5 Pats right around him can pounce on the ball.

Any route you take comes with risk, but that play seemed more risky than it should have been.

spikerman
02-04-2016, 08:59 PM
Damn, sorry guys. I just saw this thread. Work has been keeping me busy. Here's the deal, Roby could have scored on the interception for 2 points (best case scenario). Here are the bad things that could have happened: If the Patriots had recovered the ball, they could have run it in and scored the two points. If it's like the college rule (and I assume it is) if Roby had run it out and then run back into the end zone for some reason where he was tackled that would have been the very rare 1 point safety.

As for advancing the ball, on 4th down or a try only the player who fumbles the ball can advance it. This is due to Stabler purposely fumbling the ball forward for a touchdown in the 70s. Since there was a change of possession, Roby's fumble could have been advanced by anybody on the Patriots.