Criticism for Belichick is misguided
The worst call of the final 2:08 of the Indianapolis Colts' 35-34 victory over the New England Patriots on Sunday wasn't made by Bill Belichick.
It came courtesy of head linesman Tom Stabile, who on the now-infamous fourth-and-2 attempt, ruled Patriots running back Kevin Faulk(notes) was juggling the pass until he landed on his back inside the 30-yard line.
Replays show Faulk had jumped in the air and initially batted the ball up. Stabile could see that. Faulk, however, then cradled it into his chest as he planted one foot on each side of the 30 before being pushed down.
Whether replay would have been conclusive enough to overrule Stabile's call is unknown. The NFL may claim the call on the field would've stood, but who knows what would've been determined.
Since the Patriots had blown their timeouts and the play came just outside the two-minute warning, which would've triggered an automatic review, it's all a moot point.
Stabile's call was problematic because he couldn't have seen where Faulk caught the pass. Faulk was turned away from Stabile as he brought the ball in. The ref was therefore screened by Faulk's back and shoulder pads – plus at least some part of Colts defender Melvin Bullitt(notes). He had no view of the ball, Faulk's hands or Faulk's chest.
There was no way Stabile saw the play. He ruled anyway. He must have assumed that Faulk was still juggling the ball when he planted both feet. (Personally, I think he had possession). By making a decision he couldn't accurately make, he spotted the ball just short of the first down.
In fairness to Stabile, this is why calling a football game is so difficult. The speed, size, intensity of the moment is unmatched in sports. Mistakes happen. He, no doubt, was trying his best.
No other official overruled him. There were at least three on the field that would've had better views. Two of them were looking away from the catch, according to replays. The other was all the way across the field and was likely screened himself.
So the play failed, even if it probably didn't.
As a result, Belichick has been getting roasted for going for it on fourth down despite the fact that his team either actually converted the play or was ruled to have not converted it by an official who couldn't have known.
"I thought we could make the yard," Belichick said. "We had a good play, we completed it. I don't know how we couldn't get a yard on that completion."
Belichick brings plenty of heat on himself, so no one is going to shed any tears for the guy. His postgame pout, sprint from the field and open-field block of some poor camera man by his goon squad security team is all typical behavior.
Most of America has seemed to revel in seeing the so-called evil genius get a comeuppance by letting gumption overrule football intelligence.
None of that is particularly fair, though.
While the criticism has been near unanimous, it's been based mostly on some axiom that the better percentage move was to punt it away. Meanwhile, actual statistical probability formulas say the opposite. An overwhelming number say Belichick played the odds correctly. At worst, there's AccuScore, which says the win probability was about even regardless.
Consider Brian Burke of AdvancedNFLStats.com. As Burke wrote for the New York Times:
"With 2:08 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful 4th-and-2 conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53 percent of the time from that field position. The total win probability for the 4th-down conversion attempt would therefore be:
"(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP (WP stands for win probability)
"A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their 34. Teams historically get the TD 30 percent of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP."
You don't need to know much math to know 79 percent is a greater likely win percentage than 70 percent.
Personally, I'm not completely convinced of probability conversions when it comes to a game with as many variables as football. The Colts defense is not the average defense. This isn't playing against St. Louis in the second quarter. Crowd noise matters. And so on.
Then again, Peyton Manning(notes) isn't the average quarterback – either at his own 30 or the Patriots' 30. Of course, neither is a pass from Tom Brady(notes) to Kevin Faulk, two clutch, veteran players.
Still, it ought to count for something that all of the probability formulas go in Belichick's favor. The majority of people issuing blistering attacks can cite the assumed probability that punting was the best option. That can't be deemed more accurate than actual probability even if you don't believe fully in the math.
There are few things worse in sports than when conventional wisdom of how something should be done (because that's how it's always been done) sends a chilling effect for innovation and ingenuity.
There are few black-and-white decisions in the course of a football game. One may be better than the other, but it's never 100 percent to zero percent. Belichick didn't make a good choice or a bad choice, he made his own choice.
Having a coach think for himself based on great insight (statistical or otherwise) should never be called a bad move.
Let's mention a few other things. No one play wins or loses a 60-minute football game. The Patriots twice turned the ball over in the Colts' end zone – one a Brady interception, one a Laurence Maroney(notes) goal-line fumble. Avoid that and the game is over. There are 50 other examples.
Belichick is at no risk of being fired like other coaches who too often play it by the book and lose. He can, and always has, made bold decisions that more often than not work out for him.
And while he may or may not have hurt his players' feelings, well, when has that ever mattered to this guy? He's always been about winning and winning only. The man has cut Super Bowl MVPs before. You don't like his decision? Deal with it.
In the end the Patriots lost, and that's essentially all that matters. Belichick will be the first to tell you that. You win or you lose.
The one thing Belichick couldn't factor when making his decision was a referee making a call he wasn't in position to make. Stabile's assumption that Faulk was still juggling a ball when his feet straddled the first-down line was the difference on the play.
If Stabile assumes the other way or another official happens to be watching, it's probably first-and-10 New England.
Instead, Belichick is an egomaniacal moron. He'd have still been a genius had he just punted and lost that way.
