Super? Bowl

I wouldn't mind if this thread turned into a football tutorial myself now that I've arrived at some level of interest due to this game.There are some pretty basic questions I have. Of course I could look them up in Google tooLike, why on earth is it called Football when there is so very little contact between the ball and feet except at very particular points in the game?Is there a particular formation of players that is always assumed at the beginning of every play?Is the end of every play called a "down?" Does a "down" mean something like when the ball touches the ground?After which a new play has to begin with the formation mentioned or something like that?Is it the coach who always calls the plays?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You think football and hockey are fast, try watching videos of sabre fencing.

It certainly seemed reasonable to Super Bowl commentators Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth, who spoke about whether Belichick might just let Seattle score. They put Belichick on camera and said, "He's certainly thinking about it." Articles have discussed this. The issue isn't whether it's the best play, it's whether it's something that would have been part of the thinking of both coaches, and in this case it's something Belichick has done before.There were of course other issues.The problem with putting up a fight on the goal line is that each time New England held them off it would be that much less time for scoring a field goal.The problem with using a timeout is that if Seattle eventually scored anyway New England would have had only one timeout left for scoring a field goal.The problem with letting Marshawn Lynch make three straight runs at the goal line from the one is that he *will* score, and taking a timeout would have made a pass play less likely.And that's just some of them.People sometimes forget some of the unusual calls Belichick has made. During the 2003 season in Denver trailing by one on their own 1-yard line with around three minutes to go Belichick took an intentional safety (the center snapped the ball into one of the uprights), putting Denver up by three. After the free kick Denver went three and out, and the Patriots scored a touchdown on their ensuing possession, winning the game. That gamble paid off.During the 2009 season in Indianapolis and leading by 6 with around two minutes to go, the Patriots went for it on fourth and two on their own 28 because the defense was gassed and they'd been unable to stop Manning in the fourth quarter. That gamble didn't pay off. Denver took possession and scored a touchdown.And as I alluded at the top, in Super Bowl XLVI for the 2011 season down 17-15 with the Giants on the Patriots 6-yard line with around a minute left, Belichick let the Giants Ahmad Bradshaw score. This gamble didn't pay off, either.So it seems pretty reasonable to assume that Belichick considered the possibility of letting Seattle score, and that Carroll assumed he would be considering it.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Some folks think that Seattle lost because of Karma... that they shouldn't have been in that game anyway because of how they won* against Green Bay to get in.*recovering an onside-kick at the end of the game and a few other things

Short answer: Soccer (Football) -> Rugby Football -> American Football -> "Football"Long answer: Why is American Football called "Football"?Also, cool point: The "forward pass" where the QB throws the football downfield to the receivers was not always allowed. American football used to be a lot more like rugby where you could only toss the ball backwards and run it forwards. A game under these rules included much more kicking (kind of like how rugby does). No. There are many different offensive and defensive formations.
They are generally decided by the offensive (or defensive) coach on the sideline, and sent to the captain-on-the-field (usually the Quarterback) via a radio transceiver in the helmet. The captain can then use the formation provided, or override it with their own if they see something else coming up. It's then the captain's job to relay this info to the rest of the team so they can setup before the play starts.Loud stadiums can get in the way of this formation-setup ("play-making").
This is generally accepted as the reason why football has such a large advantage to be the Home Team.
The home-team crowd will be quieter for the home-team to make their offensive formation setup, but yell real loud to make it harder for the away-team to do their offensive formation setup.
In football, the home team wins on average about 60% of the time. As opposed to a more evenly matched 50-50 shot for most other sports. Not the end... the whole play. First down, second down, third down and fourth down. Each "down" is an attempt to move the ball forward up the field. Starts when the ball is "hiked" and stops when the ball/player goes down or out of bounds or scores. Quite possibly. But it's just the football word for "this play" or "this attempt." In between each down, the formation (as mentioned above) is picked and communicated to all the players to setup for the next down. Usually, but not always.
Quarterbacks (the on-field captain) can call a different play.
Some quarterbacks choose the play on their own more often than others... depending on how good their instincts are.There are some plays where the quarterback chooses a play as quickly as possible and sets up as fast as possible in order to try and catch the defense off-guard. These plays generally do not involve the coach at all other than "Go-go-go!!!" For coaches, you have a few main ones:Offensive Coach (his job to call offensive formation setups).
Defensive Coach (his job to call defensive formation setups).
Head Coach (his job to manage both offensive and defensive coaches as well as everything else like calling time-outs or challenging the ref's call on the play and things like that).

FWIW, my wife and son were speculating on the issue during the game. I agree with subbie that it probably isn't a good strategy when the result is that you'll need to score a touch down with under a minute or so. Not calling time outs in such a situation would be a poor way to implement the strategy.But we've seen the strategy used before. And in at least one case, the ball carrier had actually been instructed not to score, but ended up falling into the end zone after taking a couple of steps. How similar was the situation? Maybe if the Seahawks have first down from further out (say the five), and are probably going to run a couple of plays it would be worthwhile. But perhaps not in the circumstances we saw in the Super bowl.The situation inside the one yard line is pretty funky. Even if the Pats don't let them score, there is a good likelihood that Seattle will do so anyway. And if you stop them, then almost certainly the ball won't be advanced in a way that matters.

Field goal to tie. Right, Super Bowl XLVI, I mentioned that.It doesn't matter whether letting Seattle score would have been a good or bad call. What matters is that Pete Carroll had to think about whether Bill Belichick was thinking about it (among other things). He had to wait out whether Belichick would call a timeout, which ended up wasting the Seahawks about 25 seconds of clock.Consider how well this worked out for the Patriots. Had Wilson's pass fallen incomplete it would have stopped the clock around 20 seconds. Now it's third down. If Seattle scores it's all over (mostly), but if not then there are maybe 14 seconds left, the clock is running, and it's fourth down. Can Seattle line up a run a play in 14 seconds? Sure, but making Seattle rush was exactly what Belichick had in mind. Would Carroll have realized this and run another pass play on third down instead of a run?If Carroll hadn't worried about what Belichick was thinking and had just run 2nd down as soon as they were ready, 2nd down would have happened around 50 seconds instead of 26 seconds. If they didn't score they still would have had plenty of time for two more running plays.--Percy

Of course not. It's television and not everything is in 3D so you can lose sight of where the ball actually is. With knowledge of the formations, watching which way the guards pull, where the backs start and which way they move when the ball is snapped, you can get a real good idea where the ball is and where it's going. The beauty is in knowing that a lot of the time the play is designed to fool.Think of what things would look like to a defensive linebacker. His coaches have signaled in the defensive play. Strong chance of a run, the offensive line is strongest on the right so expect a run to the right. The ball is snapped, the quarterback turns and runs away while the halfback runs forward to the quarterback. Did the quarterback really stuff the ball into the halfback's gut or is that a fake and the quarterback is now rolling out to the left? In the live action of the game just a mere glimpse of what you think might be the ball is all you have to go on.I always love it when the cameraman gets fooled and follows the wrong guy. In a lot of cases, Faith, you're not supposed to know where the ball is and you have the advantage of a bird's eye view. Smoke and mirrors, Love.

A guy at the library who didn't see it told me he heard it was a good game. Then he asked me how to start Internet Explorer.I see no reason not to take his word for it.

Here's an interesting and detailed analysis arguing that Pete made a better call at the end of the game than Belichick: Summarizing, he breaks down the percentages on all possibilities and finds that running or passing made little difference to Seattle's chances of winning, while calling a timeout would have improved the Patriots' chances of winning by a couple percentage points.My own analysis: Belichick wasn't going by the numbers. He believed that putting doubt in the heads of Seattle players and coaches gave him the best chance.This view comes from my own experience in sports. When I'm up against a less experienced player who's playing me even, as it gets down to crunch time I never worry because inevitably this is when things just go wrong for the less experienced player. And when it's me who's the less experienced player, guess what?When the differentiating factor is talent rather than experience then the psychological aspects are much less, but at the end of the Super Bowl the important factor was experience. Belichick had far more experience than Pete with crunch time in big games.--Percy

The problem with your explanation is that it was silly for Carroll to worry about it because the smart play was to take the free touchdown if it was offered. The decision might be different on the five yard line, but not on the half yard line.Even had NE called out, the smart play was to take the touchdown, gift or not. Therefore Seattle need not bother worrying about it. And if giving away the touch down was actually a bad play, same decision. Just take it.It seems to me that you are over thinking this. There was plenty of time. Seattle just executed poorly.

You seem unaware of how much these strategic scenarios are being dissected in sports articles There *was* plenty of time, but instead of immediately running the play when they were ready with 56 seconds to go which would have allowed them to run three times, Pete waited to see if Belichick would call a timeout, and the clock ran down to 26 seconds, forcing Seattle to run at least one pass play.--Percy

Over-thinking is what EvC is all about.