THE WORST CALL IN NFL HISTORY! REALLY?

“When they called timeout I said, ‘Oh no. He’s getting ready to go for this”

“Crazy”

“You have to say, ‘If I don’t make it, what happens?"

“I’m going to give them the ball on the 28. They have a hot quarterback and I have a tired defense. If I punt, I’m going to make him go 70 yards. If you’re gambling [and playing the odds], you’re probably going to punt it.”


The above quotes appeared in New York Post writer Brian Costello's article -"Genius To Dope"- in Tuesday's paper. In it, he gets two former coaches' opinion about the Bill Belichick call against Indianapolis, Herm Edwards and Brian Billick

Yep, of all people, former Jets and Chiefs head coach, Edwards, who now works for ESPN weighs in on the subject.

So Edwards is now questioning Belichick's decision-making? Fascinating. Perhaps when he sits down with Belichick to have a cup of coffee at his home, he'll see the multiple Super Bowl rings that Belichick has in his trophy case. And you, Herm?

Belichick took a chance. Crazy one? Most definitely. But a chance, none the less. Herm? Jets and Chiefs fans know that Edwards wouldn't even buy a scratch-off lottery ticket because it requires taking a chance. Should Edwards really be second-guessing Bellichick?

Also in the same article, former Ravens coach, - former Super Bowl winning coach - Billick, offered his opinion:

“Given the only barometer we have, it was a failure. But how do you second guess Bill Belichick on the terms of the thought process?

“This was not an emotional, knee-jerk decision. Bill Belichick doesn’t do anything that isn’t well thought out. This is not an emotional response.”

Boomer Esiason, co-host of the "Boomer and Carton Show" heard on WFAN and former NFL Super Bowl QB said:

“I think Belichick felt, ‘I’ve got one chance to win this game right here and I’m going to take it,’ ” Esiason said.

“In this case, with these set of circumstances, I’m not so sure it was the wrong idea.”

But all this should be taken with a grain of salt as Mike Francesa, host of the "Mike'd Up Show" on WFAN and the YES Network; host of "Mike'd Up" on NBC; host of NFL Sunday on WFAN ; host of the Dating Game; host of the Family Feud; host of the Academy Awards, well, you get the idea, gave his opinion on THE call:

"The worst call in NFL history."

What could we possibly add to that statement? GOD has spoken! Forgive me but are we really going to be standing around the water cooler ten years from now discussing this particular call? If it occurred in a playoff game or, heaven forbid, a Super Bowl, than, yes, we would but since it didn't, no, we won't.

NOLO CONTENDRE

Bucks add to Nets' misery, hand New Jersey 12th straight loss

Expect a "vote of confidence" any day now to be issued from New Jersey Nets president, Rod Thorn, for his beleaguered head coach Lawrence Frank. Isn't that what always happens after twelve straight losses?

IN THE LINE OF FIRE

When Jacksonville Jaguar, Quentin Groves, intercepted a Mark Sanchez pass and headed towards the end zone, he had no one around him when he tripped over his own feet at the 7-yd line. CBS analyst, Dan Fouts, while watching the replay of Groves falling down said, "A sniper got him." Curious choice of words.

A TERRIBLE CALL DOOMS BELICHICK'S QUESTIONABLE DECISION

Well, I'm certainly not here to defend Bill Belichick's bold, but curious, decision at the end of Sunday night's Patriots-Colts game by any stretch of the imagination. The 'talking parrots' spoke about it all day long on the talk shows. I guess by calling the play the "dumbest" in NFL history, they felt they had a scoop on the rest of the 'talking parrots'. Good for them.

I am here, however, to say that I don't think enough was made out of the fact that it was a terrible call by the official! Why? Because that's what I do. Ya see, folks, it's the NFL and that usually means one thing and that is the official who had the worst view of the play will usually make the game-deciding call.

The top picture shows where the officials were situated during the crucial play. Mr. Official on the near sideline (1st down marker) was the official who indicated the ball was bobbled. Naturally, he had the worst view of the play since Kevin Faulk's back was to him.

Mr. Official, who was standing in the middle of the field, who obviously had the better view, gave no indication that it was a bobbled ball. Hey, it's the NFL, folks.

Not only did Mr. Official tell us that the ball was bobbled but announcer, Al Michaels, kept looking at a replay from behind saying, [there you see him bobbling it, bobbling it and being pushed backwards before he could get the first down]. Not so.

I have watched the video above 100 times and I have yet to see this "bobble" that both Mr. Official saw and Michaels was describing time and time again? Did the ball hit Faulk in the hands and then drop into his chest? You bet it did! And look how fast that happened. The idea that he was bobbling it while the defender was pushing him back, therefore, making him come up short of the first down is ludicrous. Faulk absolutely had possession! And he had enough for the first down!

Again, look at the video and you will see that Faulk has possession of the ball when his left leg hits the ground. Then, go to the middle picture above, look at his left leg on or near the ground and you will see his whole body is across the yellow line indicating a first down. I submit to you that Faulk has already secured the ball by this time. Look where his hands are. They are no more than chest high. The video confirms that he has possession at this point.

Well, that's the debate that I would have liked to have heard on the radio today. Mostly everyone poo-poohed the call by the official. Yours truly didn't.

HIDE AND SEEK

Well, we think that Minnesota QB, Brett Favre, hit wide receiver Sidney Rice with a bomb on this play but we're not sure since ESPN loaded up on the graphics a bit too early. What good is showing highlights if we can't see them?

AL MICHAELS: A LITTLE STRETCH

Sure, Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on his own 28-yd line, up six, with two minutes to go against Indianapolis last night was curious but to say that it will "live in infamy" as NBC's Al Michaels suggested was a bit over the top, no?

SPORTS FAN LIVE

Looking back at the baseball playoffs and World Series, one topic dominated the talk show circuit. Find out what it was by clicking on the "Sports Fan Live" widget in the upper left hand corner and look for me in the featured bloggers column on the right hand side.

THE NFL FOOLS COMMITTEE

Boy, wouldn't you like to pull up a chair and spend a couple of minutes inside an NFL rules committee meeting? I would.

This past Sunday, the Giants Eli Manning was flushed out of the pocket in the second quarter. Before he stepped out of bounds, he passed the ball to no one in particular on the sidelines. That wasn't the problem.

The problem was that Mr. Official, who was standing right there, said that Manning's foot was out of bounds before he threw the football. The above picture shows clearly that either the official is blind or he had the Chargers plus the four and a half. The result was a loss of five yards for the Giants.

No problem. After all, that's what the red challenge flag is all about, right? CBS's "number one" announcing team of Jim Nantz and Phil Simms tell the viewing audience "that will go as a sack unless Tom Coughlin wants to challenge it." What head coach wouldn't challenge an obvious bad call such as this one?

But wait! Coughlin goes to throw the red flag and is told by Mr. Referee that the call is NOT reviewable. Huh? Why not? A QB can be challenged on whether or not he threw the ball over the line of scrimmage, right? But he can't be challenged on whether or not he was out of bounds when he threw a ball? Makes perfect sense. Uh, not really.

Also, Mr. Referee looks at an "instant" replay for 45 minutes to try and figure out whether a receiver has his left pinky toe a millimeter in bounds while maintaining possession of the ball but we are not allowed to replay whether a QB was a foot inbounds when he let go of a pass? Wow.

While we're on the subject it was clear that both Nantz and Simms did not know the rule as they mentioned that Coughlin might want to challenge it. But after it was announced by the referee that it was not a reviewable play, neither one scratched their head, wondered aloud or offered any kind of explanation as to why it was not reviewable. That's funny because you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone watching at home was wondering what was going on. Oh well.

GOLF FRAUDCASTERS

I watched the WGC-HSBC Championship from China on the Golf Channel Sunday night. None of the usual broadcasters from the Golf Channel were doing the broadcast. Instead, there were a couple of lads from across the pond providing the coverage.

I never did get their names but they were familiar voices to me from watching golf from Europe before. I couldn't help but notice something about their style of announcing. Whereas, our American golf announcers try so hard to sound so much like European ones, the announcers the other night sounded like anything but announcers from Europe.

The broadcast was straight forward and entertaining. I kept waiting for the nonsense that American announcers throw at the viewing audience all the time.

Sayings like "He authored a par" or "He negotiated a birdie" were never uttered. Hmmm. The Americanos would make you think that that's how golf is spoken "over there." Never were we told that a golfer was "level par." True, no golfer that day was 'level par' because they were all firing birdies but you had the sense that even if they were, you wouldn't have heard it expressed quite that way anyway.

Perhaps The Golf Channel's Kelly Tilgham and ABC's Mike Tirico, two of the more notorious American wannabes, can actually take in a tournament from Europe, listen to the announcers and, then, cringe with horror when they realize how silly they sound. FORE!

THE CHAD GAUDIN CHRONICLES

So who exactly is Chad Gaudin and why did we hear so much about him during the World Series? Who was this masked man that every 'talking parrot' on the radio and TV sports talk shows told us should have pitched the 5th game for the Yankees? Who is this swashbuckling do-gooder/crime fighter/part-time starting pitcher that was going to save the day for the Yankees during the World Series?

Let's forget about the fact that no Yankees fan would know Gaudin even if they tripped over him. We heard so much about him for a few days there that I actually missed hearing about Brittany Spears and her lip-syncing problems, Lindsey Lohan and her relationship with her father and whomever Jennifer Aniston was dating last week. Gaudin wiped them all off the front and back pages.

Ya see, many of the local 'talking parrots' and others wanted Gaudin to start game 5 of the World Series. Their reasoning was why not have A.J.Burnett pitch at Yankee Stadium on 4 days rest if the series went to a 6th game and, also, have Andy Pettitte on 4 days rest if a game 7 was needed.

Gaudin came over from the San Diego Padres during the year and pitched a total of 43 innings. He was 2-0 with a 3.43 ERA. This was the masked man that the 'talking parrots' wanted to pitch the 5th game! Yep, Gaudin was theee man.

Joe Girardi decided that he was going to have his three top pitchers pitch on only three days rest for the whole series. Well, after we heard about how Gaudin should start the 5th game after the Yankees took a 3-1 series lead, Girardi stuck to his guns and pitched Burnett in game 5.

After Burnett got lit up in the 5th game, WFAN's Mike "The Big Man" Francesa called it a "big mistake" pitching him. Huh? How could Girardi's decision be a big mistake when the series didn't even play out yet? There were still two games to go!

1050 ESPN Radio's Michael Kay questioned the move also. Sure, they said, Burnett had pitched on three day's rest before in his career and was effective but it was such a small sampling(4-0 2.33 ERA). Kay made an additional case for Burnett by citing his ERA at home (3.51) as being a whole run lower than on the road (4.59).

A couple of pinheads from ESPN's Baseball Tonight Show seemed to be on the same page as Francesa and Kay as their short-sightedness got the best of them also. In this world of instant analysis, I guess it wouldn't make good TV or radio if the show's host said, "We'll just have to wait until the end of the Series to see if Girardi made the right move." Nope, the Burnett move was wrong, period!

All along, the 'talking parrots' very much minimized the fact that Pedro Martinez was starting for the Phillies. Sure, they mentioned that Martinez had not pitched on anything less than 45 days rest the entire year and now he was going on just four, but, hey, it's all about Girardi and his boneheaded moves, not the Phillies.

The other funny thing about the "save Burnett for the 6th game" crowd is there isn't a Yankees fan out there who woulda/shoulda trusted Burnett to go in that crucial game, no matter how much rest he had. He was 13-9 on the year with a 4.04 ERA. He was prone to being erratic. He showed many times that if he got a bad break, he seemed to get flustered and lose his focus. Not really the guy I would want going in that 6th game, that's for sure.

Well, we all know how the Series played out, don't we? Burnett got beat. Pettitte pitched well enough to win. Martinez got rocked. Girardi had the last laugh. The Yankees had their parade. And, in spite of not pitching the 5th game of the Series, Gaudin got his ring.

Wow! It feels good to get that off my chest.

ANOTHER PEEK INSIDE TIM McCARVER'S NOTEBOOK

When the Yankees utility outfielder, Brett Gardner, came to bat with a runner on first and no outs in the bottom of the 6th inning in game 6 of the World Series, FOX's Tim McCarver told the viewing audience "Gardner up there to bunt. An excellent bunter. Probably the best in the American League." The best?Naturally, he offered NO proof of this opinion/statement.

Let's look inside the numbers and try and come up with the reason McCarver said what he said. These are some of the bunting statistics associated with players from teams in the American League according to baseball-reference.com:

Brett Gardner

248 (official at bats)

6 (sacrifice hits-sacrifice bunts)

Elvis Andrus - Texas

480

12

Asdrubal Cabrera - Cleveland

523

10

Adam Everett - Detroit

315

15

Gerald Laird

413

10

Ramon Santiago

262

10

Erick Aybar - Anaheim

504

12

Jeff Mathis

237

8

Yuniesky Betancourt - Seattle

224

8

Franklin Gutierrez

565

13

Ronny Cedeno

186

9

Denard Span - Minnesota

578

12

Nick Punto

359

13

Matt Tolbert

198

10

Sometimes McCarver seems to suffer from what a lot of other announcers, especially football, suffer from and that's whatever players are involved in the game that they are doing, are the best, the baddest, the meanest, the fastest and they are the ones who have the biggest heart and want to win the most. Isn't it funny how that happens.

McCarver offered no stats to back up his statement that Gardner was the best bunter in the American League. A quick check of the other players in the league shows that quite a few of them had more sacrifice bunts/hits in less at bats than Gardner had. Does that make them better? If we go by raw numbers, yes, it does.

How does McCarver know that Gardner is the best in the American League? Does he watch a lot of Yankees games? Even if he did, how many times did he see Gardner play? After all, he only had 248 plate appearances.

McCarver has a disease. This disease is what's known as 'diarrhea of the mouth' which he always seems to be suffering from. It's caused by incessant talking during every situation that comes up in a baseball game with the idea that every person watching the game is watching his or her first baseball game. If left untreated, this disease can be fatal . . . to viewers!

DARN IT! METS STEAL YANKEES PARADE THUNDER AGAIN!

Mets decline J.J. Putz's option

A PEEK INSIDE McCARVER'S NOTEBOOK

When Yankees center fielder Brett Gardner robbed Jayson Werth of an extra base hit in the bottom of the 5th inning in Monday's 8-6 Phillies win, FOX announcer Tim McCarver said, "Gardner's first game back. What a play!" Huh?

He then added, "Brett Gardner was on the disabled list with a broken left thumb for six weeks." Uh, Tim, uh, Gardner has been back for quite a while. Uh, he returned during the regular season, Tim. Uh, he has been on the roster for all three playoff series, Tim. Ya know, uh, the Angels-Yankees series that you, uh, broadcasted, Tim.

I'm not quite sure where McCarver came up with his "first game back" statement and I'm not quite sure what Gardner's left thumb had to do with the catch he made the other night but I guess it was in the pre-game notes under Gardner's name so McCarver used them even though they made no sense.

NEWS AT 11

When Boomer Esiason and Craig Carton of the "Boomer and Carton Show" on WFAN briefly spoke about this past weekend's Rutgers-UConn football game, they mentioned what a tough loss it was for the Huskies.

Esiason, in a very somber voice, wondered if having the late Jasper Howard in the backfield could have prevented the Scarlet Knights from scoring a late touchdown to help Rutgers to a 28-24 victory.

Carton couldn't be bothered pretending that he was interested in continuing the 'tsk-tsk' story as he was obviously occupied by a story/picture that he had in front of him. A story/picture that lead Carton to tell Esiason "take a look at this."

The uproarious laughter that ensued when Esiason looked at whatever Carton showed him was quite funny. . . for them. Since nobody else could see what prompted the locker room laughter, I wondered what it was that was so funny that it interrupted the "tear in his eye" moment that Esiason was trying to convey in discussing the Rutgers-Uconn game.

It made me think that Esiason would make a great newscaster. Ya know, the guy/gal that tells you in one breath that a pregnant mother was murdered just hours ago with an "I care" low, subdued voice and then, seconds later, shouts out, "How 'bout them Yankees."

NO BIGGIE

In the second quarter of the Jets-Dolphins game on Sunday, New York's return man, Jim Leonard, put his hand up signaling a fair-catch at the 7 YD-LINE! What used to be a no-no in the game is now treated as an ho-hum play. It is this author's view that a punt should NEVER be fielded inside the 10 yd-line. EVER. If the ball happens to be downed by the opposing team inside the 10 or the 5 yd-line, credit the other team.

CBS's number one announcing team, Jim Nantz and Phil Simms, treated it as just another play. After the punt, Nantz matter-of-factly told us, "Leonard with the fair catch at the seven." This was after Nantz said, "Fields (Miami punter) forces the fair catch." Forces a fair catch? You can see by the photo that Leonard wasn't forced to do anything. Simms said nothing after the catch and even after a commercial break. No big deal, I guess.

Has the game changed? Am I missing something here? It's now okay to fair catch a ball inside your own 10 yd-line with nary a mention? Is this where you want your rookie QB to start his drive with a 3-0 lead?

In a game where we are constantly told "field position" is everything by these very same announcers, a bad play like this goes unmentioned? Ah, what do I know.