What does it mean to throw the ball away in football?

Dear Sports Fan,

What does it mean to throw the ball away in football? I’ve been watching some football and I’m not totally ignorant about the game, but this phrase has always confused me. I know there’s a foul for intentional grounding. How can throwing the ball away be a good thing if there’s a foul for it?

Thanks,
Diane


 

Dear Diane,

Throwing the ball away in football is what a smart quarterback does when he scans the field and realizes that none of his wide receivers or tight ends are far enough from a defender to safely throw the ball to. The cost of an unsafe throw can be very big. If a defender catches the ball (called an interception,) the quarterback’s team loses possession of the ball. On the other hand, throwing the ball where no one can get it simply results in an incompletion. It wastes one of the offensive team’s downs (or chances they have to advance the ball) but that’s usually not a big loss. The trick is, as you mentioned, that sometimes simply throwing the ball to no one is illegal and the cost for being caught intentionally grounding the ball is severe. Let’s go over the rule and then look at ways that football team’s skirt the rule so that they can throw the ball away without being penalized.

The intentional grounding rule reads as follows:

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

So, what does all that mean? First of all, it establishes the rule as subjective. It’s up to the referees to decide whether or not a pass has a “realistic chance of completion.” This is a funny thing when you think about it, because football players make catches routinely that have fans leaping out of their chairs and screaming in disbelief. One of the reasons to watch football is to see great athletes doing things that seem unrealistic. The subjectivity is necessary because the intent of the rule is to penalize quarterbacks for intentionally throwing the ball where no one can get it. So, we assume that football refs are used to what players can and can’t do, and we move on. The second thing this rule does is that it carves out a scenario where it’s legal for a quarterback to throw the ball fifty yards up into the stands if they feel like it. If the quarterback is “out of the pocket” he’s allowed to do this. The pocket is defined as an area starting where the offensive line lines up for a play and extending back from the left tackle’s left butt cheek and the right tackle’s right butt cheek into infinity. All a quarterback needs to do to be within his legal rights to throw the ball away is to run outside of that area and make sure he throws it past where the ball was when the play started. This keeps him from throwing it straight into the ground but it’s not much of a safeguard because quarterbacks can almost always reach the sidelines with a throw, even if they are actively being mugged.

Nonetheless, you’ll hear commentators complementing quarterbacks who throw the ball away from the pocket or chiding those who don’t all the time. This is because it’s totally common and accepted for a quarterback to throw the ball far enough from a receiver that it’s going to be safely incomplete 99.5% of the time but near enough to a receiver to establish the plausible deniability needed to avoid a penalty. As you watch football, you’ll learn to identify these times. A common scenario is a screen pass where the offensive team pretends to block as if they were protecting the quarterback but do it poorly enough to invite the defenders to overextend towards him. Then the quarterback is supposed to flip the ball over to a running back lurking several yards to the side, hopefully unnoticed by the defense. If any defenders catch on to this or “sniff it out” in football talk, the quarterback is in a tough spot because he’s about to get smashed by defenders who have been intentionally allowed a clear path to him but he has nowhere to safely throw the ball. Quarterbacks in this situation routinely throw the ball hard into the ground near the running back’s feet. Everyone knows he meant to do this but everyone also accepts that he won’t be penalized for it because the running back, acting as a potential pass receiver, was in the area where the ball hit the ground.

There’s a sports cliche that suggests that “if you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” Throwing the ball away lives in that murky grey area between legal and illegal. It’s an area that leaves fans of a quarterback who throws the ball away feeling proud of him without qualms, even while fans of their opponents are righteously indignant. Or at least they would be if they even thought about it anymore. Most fans have long ago stopped worrying about this inherently unfair aspect of football.

If you enjoyed this post, you might find value in my Guide to Football for the Curious. Get a copy here!

Thanks for the question,
Ezra Fischer

 

How does NBA TV fan night work?

While I was recording yesterday’s sports forecast podcast (say that ten times fast) I remarked that, opposed to the NHL’s national television schedulers, who chose a bummer of a game between the San Jose Sharks and the Buffalo Sabres, the NBA schedulers had gotten it exactly right by choosing the game between the Sacramento Kings and New Orleans Pelicans. What a difference, I though, that the NBA somehow managed to figure out before the season that this would be a close game between two exciting young teams. And between two teams without much pedigree also. Man, those NBA schedulers are smart. I watched about ten minutes of the game last night and while I enjoyed the action, something was nagging me, tugging at the back of my mind. What was this addition to the NBA TV scoreboard graphic at the bottom of the screen? Why did it say “Fan Night” in big, bold letters? What about this made it more of a night for fans than any other night on NBA TV. So, I looked it up.

NBA TV Fan Night works like this. Each week, fans can vote on which game they want to see next week. The NBA provides three choices and the one that gets the most votes by Saturday of the previous week, is shown nationally on NBA TV that Tuesday. Yesterday’s game between the Pelicans and Kings beat out two other games: the New York Knicks at the Milwaukee Bucks and the Los Angeles Lakers at the Atlanta Hawks. This week, the race is between these three games: the Atlanta Hawks at Washington Wizards, the Golden State Warriors at the Miami Heat, and the Detroit Pistons at the Milwaukee Bucks. Right now the voting stands at 84% for the game between the Warriors and Heat, 10% for the Hawks and the Wizards, and only 6% for the Bucks and the Knicks.

This, for a few reasons, is pretty cool. First of all, I love the idea of allowing fans to control which games get nationally televised. After all, why shouldn’t the fans have a say? For big-time national television channels like ESPN, TNT, Fox, CBS, NBC, CBS, etc. they are always showing games televised with their own team of announcers, camera people, and producers. For them, it makes sense that you’d need to plan ahead for logistical reasons. But NBA TV, like similar networks for other leagues, often simply carries regional televised games on a national platform. It’s awesome that the NBA decided to let fans choose which games to see, at least one night a week. It’s also smart — the alternative is that more people will cut the cable cord and go full-time to watching games on the internet through services like NBA League Pass, NHL Game Center, etc. The leagues benefit from these sales but television is still far more lucrative. NBA TV Fan Night is also really great for two non-commercial reasons. One, I love seeing how the voting is going for next week. What a fun little game-without-the-game! Fans of the Hawks, Wizards, Bucks, and Kings should feel a little depressed that so few unaffiliated fans want to see their games. It’s kind of a diss, isn’t it? And fans of the Pelicans, Kings, Warriors, and Heat should feel great that people are catching on to how much fun their teams are to watch. I also particularly find it interesting, at least for these two weeks, how closely my instincts about what games would be interested are shared by the majority. What does that mean? Are we all a product of the sports-media hive mind? Or do we just know good basketball?

I’m going to keep my eye on this for the next few weeks and see if there are any close races or interesting conclusions to be drawn.

Thanksgiving is coming. Can't you smell the… football?

The turkey’s in the oven. Your family has descended on the house like a horde of benevolent Vikings. The table is set, even the kids on down at the end of the room. Everything is under control. It’s time to take a deep breath, pour yourself a drink, and go visit with your loved ones. Thanksgiving is underway.

Wait, what is this? Everyone is gathered around the television. They’re watching football! Chomping away on pretzels, yammering about third downs, fantasy points, and encroachment. Gah! Every year this happens. It’s not that you hate football, it’s just that you’ve never understand what’s so special about it. Why do people like it so much? How does it work anyway?

Most years, you’d simply slip out and go smoke a cigar on the roof with Aunt Erma or talk gardening with Cousin Salvador. This year is different. This year, you have a secret weapon, an ace up your sleeve. This year, you read the special Thanksgiving 2014 edition of Dear Sports Fan’s Guide to Football for the Curious. You start out slow, with a few nods and grunts of agreement. Then you break out some technical talk about going for it on fourth down or whether you like the over or under in the game. Pretty soon you’re identifying defensive formations and making accurate predictions about whether you’re seeing a run play or a pass play developing. Your family is impressed.

Stay and watch or leave to enjoy some down time with a book and that pecan pie. You don’t need to watch football on Thanksgiving but it’s a big part of the holiday for some of the people you love and now you know all about it. Of course if you’re the sports fan in your family, you may not need this guide. Now that you understand a little bit of how it might feel to be a non-sports fan at your family gathering, it’s your responsibility to (kindly and thoughtfully) help include them.

For a free copy of the Guide to Football for the Curious with bonus Thanksgiving 2014 content, subscribe to the email newsletter here.

The benefit of learning toughness from sports

You have to be tough to play sports. That’s a central message of most sports cultures that gets hammered into athletes brains from a very young age. Sports culture is fairly unyielding on this principal. “Walk it off.” “There’s a difference between being hurt and being injured.” “Rub some dirt on it.”  These common phrases are just some of the ways that parents, coaches, and peers all reinforce that core tenant of sports, playing through pain. We also honor professional athletes who play through pain. Michael Jordan’s flu game, where he scored 38 points despite being visibly ill is legendary. Willis Reed coming out to play in game seven of the 1970 NBA finals despite having a torn thigh muscle is equally famous. In baseball, Kirk Gibson’s hobbled home run in the 1988 World Series remains one of the most famous plays ever. Football players make playing through injury so routine that you needn’t look farther back than a few weeks ago when quarterback Tony Romo broke two bones in his lower back and came back to finish the game. No sport lives its injury ethos more diligently than hockey. In the 2013 playoffs, Gregory Campbell broke his leg during a penalty kill and played on it for more than a minute before getting to the bench. In that same playoffs, Campbell’s teammate Patrice Bergeron played through broken ribs, torn cartilage around the ribs, a punctured lung, and a separated shoulder. Just this season, Olli Maata, played with a cancerous throat tumor. He played until his scheduled surgery, which doctors think was successful, and is now back skating, ahead of schedule to return for his team. Not only does hockey culture demand this of its players, but it demands that they play through injury immediately (thus the phrase, “player A [suffered this injury] and didn’t miss a shift”) but without complaint.

Playing through pain isn’t always a good thing. We now know that ignoring the effects of brain injuries is a very, very bad thing to do. The culture is slowly shifting to be more permissive of players who voluntarily report injuries or who choose to sit out a game or two to get healthy. This is almost definitely for the best but it’s easy, when in the midst of a cultural shift, to forget the benefits of the element of the culture that is changing. There are real benefits to the principals of toughness that sports instills in its participants. Most of us who play sports don’t become professional athletes. We’ll never need to play basketball while unable to properly walk or hockey while in intense pain but all of us are people who, at some point in our lives, will face intense challenges. Whether it’s fighting through a flu to watch your child perform in something important to them or suffering from a disease or handling the anguish of a loved one’s death or giving birth, no one makes it through life without being faced with a painful situation. The benefit of learning toughness from sports is that it’s there when you need it.

Nowhere is the benefit of having learned toughness from sports more clear than in the amazing story of Mikey Nichols. Brought to us by Steve Politi of NJ.com, this is a truly inspiring story. Nichols was playing hockey for his high school team from Monroe, NJ, when he suffered an injury to his spine which left him paralyzed:

He was chasing a puck in the corner when he was checked from behind. “I remember sliding into the boards and thinking, ‘Oh (shoot), I’m going to get a concussion. I don’t want to miss a shift.’ And then I hit the boards.”

He knew something was very wrong.

“Mikey, you good?” his best friend asked.

“I’m fine, bro. I just can’t move anything.”

Hockey culture informs its players that they should respond to all injuries with casual indifference. Yes, he’s fine. He just can’t feel his body. But he’s fine. Viewed from afar, the fact that the sport Nichols loves might have informed how he responded to a catastrophic injury he suffered while playing the sport may seem like not nearly enough to balance the scales in favor of hockey and sports culture. But when you read Politi’s article, you get a sense for how amazing Nichols is and how having grown up a hockey fan and player doesn’t just inform the moments after the injury, that it’s going to be a part of who he is forever, no matter what challenges he faces, then you start to think about things differently.

“To play in the NHL, of course,” is what Mikey will say when you ask him his goals. But then he’ll get serious. He’ll talk about his parents and the sacrifices they’ve made. “I want to be able to do everything I used to take for granted, and now I wished I had back.”

Maybe it’s The Big Idea that’ll give him that. Maybe it’ll be some other promising research. But, after spending the past 10 months meeting other people with spinal-cord injuries and benefitting from their help, he hasn’t lost hope.

“I want everyone who’s ever had to be in a wheelchair to walk again,” he said. “And to get a second chance.”

Getting paralyzed during a sporting event is horrible and I wish it never happened. There are some common-sense things hockey could change to avoid more of these injuries and they should absolutely do them. They are rare though. Nichols is one of the small percentage of people who suffer a life-changing injury playing sports but his attitude is an inspiring reminder that the lessons taught in sports can help all of us overcome (the hopefully smaller) the challenges that life presents to us. Just remember, if Nichols can figuratively say of himself, “hockey player becomes a paraplegic, doesn’t miss a shift” we can do it too.

Learning to watch football: the run/pass game

Football is one of the more opaque sports to the uninitiated. It’s easy for someone who is curious about football but not an insider to look at a game of football on television and see nothing more complex than two lines of people smashing into each other. Once beginning viewers understand some of the basics of how football works: how the snap works, what down and distance are, and what roles the quarterback, running backs, and wide receivers play, they tend to focus on those positions when watching football. Honestly, watching the quarterback, running back, and wide-receivers is how lots of people watch football, even the most passionate football fans. There’s nothing wrong with that. Following the ball on its path from center to quarterback to running back or wide receiver is a great way to watch football. As someone who is drawn to supporting roles, however, it excludes the people I’m most drawn to on the football field and it never breaks down that initial interpretation of football as a brutish sport with lines of enormous men smashing into each other. The run/pass game is a trick that I use to unravel exactly what’s going on between those lines of giants. It focuses my eye on the supporting cast of football and helps me gain a greater appreciation for the sport. Here’s how it works.

The start of each play in football is like the opening of a play or the start of a chess game. The players are in place but the drama has not yet begun. Given the speed and violence of every football play, perhaps the better metaphor is a pair of old fashioned duelists waiting for their second to drop a handkerchief signaling them to start fighting. In any event, the two teams line up opposite each other, separated by an imaginary “line of scrimmage.” Here’s what it looks like:

Football Diagram - Start of Play

You’ll notice that the offense far outnumbers the defense in our diagram. That’s not the case in real life, of course, but I’ve simplified things for our purposes. The game we’re going to play involves predicting as quickly as we can whether the offense is going to try to pass the ball or run it. On a pass play, the quarterback takes the football, drops a few yards back, and then throws it to a wide receiver who has been running deviously around the field trying to get away from defenders. On a run play, the quarterback gives the ball to a running back who takes off down the field, seeing how far he can get before he is tackled. That’s what you see if you watch the ball and the players who have the ball. To excel at this game of prediction, it’s way better to watch the offensive line.

The offensive line are a group of five super-sized humans. There’s the center, who starts each play with the ball. There are two guards, one to either side of the center and two tackles who line up on either side of the guards. This unit works together to protect the quarterback on pass plays and to create prearranged lanes for the running back to run through on running plays. With a few exceptions, when the offense is going to pass, the offensive line moves backwards, giving ground in order to buy the quarterback time to throw before being tackled by defenders. This is what that looks like:

Football Diagram - Pass Play

Notice how the offensive line moves backwards, creating a little protective area called the pocket for the quarterback to stand in while the wide receiver runs down the field and gets in position to catch the ball.

On a running play this dynamic is reversed. The offensive line fires out of their stances to start the play. They don’t have to worry about protecting the quarterback because as soon as he gets the ball, he’s just going to hand it to the running back. Nope, during a running play, the offensive line moves forward, trying to knock the defensive line backwards or trying to push them left, right, or divide them so the running back can run through and get into the second or third level of defenders, the linebackers and defensive backs. Here’s what this looks like on a run play:

Football Diagram - Run Play

The run/pass game is a great way to understand the actions and importance of the offensive line. Play it against some football fans in your life and see if you can beat them at it. Just watch the offensive line and the moment you see them step backwards, say “pass!” If you see them lean forward, say “run!” As you play, you’ll begin to notice and appreciate what the offensive line does, particularly during run plays. The beauty of a run play is not always the acrobatic power of the running back, it’s more often found in the tightly coordinated movements of the offensive linemen.

There are two key exceptions to the back = pass, forward = run rule. Both exceptions play off the expectation that those rules will hold true. A draw is a run that begins with the offensive linemen moving backwards as if for a pass. They draw the defensive linemen towards them so that when the quarterback gives the ball to the running back, he can run through the space vacated by the defensive linemen. A play-action pass is the opposite of a draw. Instead of being a running play masquerading as a passing play, the play-action pass sees the offensive linemen pretend that it’s a running play while the quarterback continues the deception by pretending to hand the ball to the running back. Instead of handing it off, the quarterback holds on to the ball and throws it to a teammate who hopefully has been left open by a completely faked out defense. The draw play and play-action pass are tricky exceptions that prove the rule.

Play the run/pass game at home with your family or out with your friends. Let me know how it goes!

The lesson of Randy Moss

Rand University, the latest in ESPN’s 30 for 30 series of documentary films about sports, premiered last night. The film was directed by Marquis Daisy and produced by Bomani Jones. The film tells the story of Randy Moss, one of the greatest wide receivers in football history, specifically his growth from a middle schooler in Rand, West Virginia, to being drafted in the first round of the NFL draft by the Minnesota Vikings. Rand University is simultaneously a  familiar, almost cliched story, and one that doesn’t get told nearly enough.

Randy Moss grew up in poor, predominantly black, rural West Virginia, in a town called Rand. He was a multi sport athlete, excelling at everything he tried his hand at: baseball, basketball, track, and football. Moss was raised in a church going family by a strong mother. His father was not in his life. Rand was a small enough community that it sent its children to nearby DuPont High School which was 98% white. Even (or maybe especially) as a star athlete at the school, Moss felt the racial tension acutely. He says in the film that he got into one racial fight every year at high school. In his senior year, Moss supported a fellow black student in a fight against a white classmate who had written “All niggers must die” on his desk. The white student was beaten badly and suffered, among other injuries, a lacerated spleen. The law was brought in and Moss plead guilty to assault charges and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. This conviction caused Notre Dame, the college Moss had his heart set on playing football for, to drop him from their team. Notre Dame helped Moss arrange attending Florida State a similarly strong college football team but with a well-known propensity for working with players with convictions in their past. One of the conditions of the arrangement was that Moss would redshirt (practice but not play) during his freshman year. Moss went along with this program, even though that can be a difficult thing for a young player to accept.

His freshman year went by smoothly but back in West Virginia, during the summer afterwards, Moss ran into more trouble. He was caught smoking weed which broke his probation and he was thrown back in jail. While there, he learned that Florida State wouldn’t take him back for his sophomore year. In interviews with Moss from prison and in footage from his subsequent trial, Moss sounds coached but sincere. It seems strange now, but in the context of mid-nineties fear/hatred towards black athletes following the OJ Simpson trial and a generally much more moralistic atmosphere (see congressional hearings about Eminem’s lyrics, the Clinton sex scandal, etc.) Moss came very close to losing his athletic future. As with almost everything, there was a more local context that may have effected his situation too. Moss claims that he was treated harshly by the legal system because he ignored the University of West Virginia while choosing a college. In retrospect, this seems totally reasonable given what we know from the Jameis Winston story at Florida State about the insidious influence of big-time college football programs in law enforcement. Moss had also fathered a child with a white woman while in high-school; not a popular move in mid-90s West Virginia (or almost ever in U.S. history.)

Moss found his one-last-shot at nearby Marshall University, a second tier college football program. This university provided Moss an opportunity that others couldn’t — because it was slated to play one more season in 1-AA before moving up to the top level 1-A college football league, Moss would not need to sit out a year because of his transfer. He could do what he wanted to do, what he lived to do: play football. And play he did. Moss played astoundingly well. He basically could not be stopped. Marshall’s coach Bob Pruitt said of Moss, “We had a simple package. If there was one guy out there guarding him, we threw him the ball.” Moss set all sorts of records that year and then, against tougher competition the following year, he did it again. He won the Fred Biletnikoff award given to the best wide receiver in the country and was a finalist for the Heisman trophy.

The message of the film is just how fragile the path to success is for even the most talented poor kids. The story of Moss’ friend and teammate, Sam Singleton Jr., was a sad reminder that just a smidge less talent and a few more misteps can easily tip the scales and consign someone to the tragic almost-inevitability of poverty. The term Rand University, which Moss sometimes claimed in NFL introductions when not repping Marshall University, was a long-lived sad, joking truism of their home town. A resident of Rand in the film explains that Rand University meant hanging out next to the 7-11 instead of going to play college or professional sports. It meant being in jail or arrested for drugs. It meant that something would go wrong and you wouldn’t be able to take the next step. No single image could make this point more poignant than the image of Randy Moss at his assault trial wearing ankle shackles. To really understand this image, you need to know how sports fans think about Moss. Grantland’s Andrew Sharp wrote an article about Moss to accompany the film. Here’s how he described Moss:

There may have been better players than Moss, but nobody ever made football look easier. He could run through defenses designed to break him in half, and run 10 yards past coverage designed to keep him from going over the top. He was faster than anyone in the league, but he never looked like he was going full speed. He could catch anything, outjump anyone, and when he was pissed, he played better.

The image of Randy Moss, who could not be stopped on a football field, literally shackled at the ankles is a bitter reminder of how tenuous the path out of poverty can be.

Rand University tells its story through one athlete’s. Michael Lewis’ book, The Blind Side, tells a similar story about Michael Oher, an offensive lineman. Lewis, an economist, more explicitly uses Oher’s tale to make a cultural point. He asks rhetorically how much raw talent could be harnessed if we, as a society, could make the path out of poverty more secure for young, poor, often black, kids? That’s exactly what U.S. Soccer is trying to do. In a wonderful article that coincidentally came out on the same day as Rand University, Stanley Kay examines the U.S. Soccer’s outreach program for Sports Illustrated. Youth soccer, as exists today, often overlooks poorer, often non-white children, because of the cost of playing on teams and maintaining soccer fields. These under-served populations end up playing more informal or street soccer. One of the interesting messages of Kay’s article is that not just are we missing out on a percentage of athletes who could become international soccer stars, because we don’t find ways to develop kids who grew up playing in street soccer games, we miss out on the creativity and ball-handling skills that informal soccer develops. Doug Andreassen, an important figure in the article, is the Chairman of U.S. Soccer’s Diversity Task Force tells Kay about:

The chemistry between Dempsey and fellow Seattle Sounders forward Obafemi Martins, who grew up playing street soccer in Nigeria. “You see this magic they have between them as forwards. It’s no-look passes, back-heel passes, stopping and starting the ball. You just don’t see that in players who come from structured backgrounds,” he says with admiration. “You can’t teach that.”

It’s inspiring to read about Andreassen and other people working to systematically harness the power of our entire country for their sport while at the same time working to make our country a better place, at least for athletic children of all colors and backgrounds. If they need any more inspiration, they should watch Rand University. Sure, Randy Moss grew up playing organized sports from a young age, but he credited some of his play to the informal game, razzle-dazzle, that he spent hours and hours playing as a kid in Rand, West Virginia. Moss had the talent to escape, he had the discipline and competitive drive to escape, but to make things easier for the next Randy Mosses, we need people like Marquis Daisy, Bomani JonesMichael Lewis, and Stanley Kay telling their stories and people like Doug Andreassen working full-time to make our society a better place.

Rand University, the 30 for 30 documentary will re-air Saturday, November 15, at 7:30 a.m. ET on ESPN2 and Saturday, November 22, at 3 a.m. ET on ESPNU. Set your DVRs.

Bryan Curtis on the language of sports

Here at Dear Sports Fan where we try to make the world of sports accessible and understandable to everyone who wants or needs to understand it, the technical language of sports is an obstacle to be cleared. We’ve written about phrases like “and one,” “ball don’t lie,” “faking a spike,” and “pulling the goalie.” Grantland is one of my favorite sports sites. It writes for sports fans who are on the inside of sports culture but who have other interests, particularly pop culture. They assume that sports fans are well-rounded people who can have other interests the same way that we assume that well-rounded people with other interests can still be curious about sports. Bryan Curtis is a staff writer for Grantland and has put together a list of clever definitions of sports terms in the vein of Ambrose Bierce’s famous The Devil’s Dictionary (which is available for an insane $.99 for Kindle or $3.50 in paperback on Amazon.) Here are a few of my favorite definitions from Bryan Curtis’ Devil’s Dictionary of Sportswriting and Devil’s Dictionary of Sportscasting:

Olympics, the (n.) — A broadcast every American hates and watches with equal devotion.

sideline reporter (n.) — A woman who’s expected to be as sophisticated about football in three minutes as the men in the booth are in three hours.

“Signed off the street … ” (exp.) — Announcers love to talk about a new player who “just last week” was selling used cars. Of course, it’s no surprise that a marginal athlete would take a temporary job between playing gigs. The surprise would be if he were signed off the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

columnist (n.) — a writer who produces less copy than a blogger.

immortal (n.) — common as a noun, i.e., “one of the immortals.” Becomes awkward when an athlete dies — an act that would seem to establish his mortality beyond all doubt. A 1953 obituary for Jim Thorpe proclaimed, “Immortal Athlete Passes.”

mature (adj.) — a mature athlete, for a sportswriter, is one who spends his every waking hour on sports.

Curtis has so many more enjoyably snarky and insightful definitions in his Devil’s Dictionary of Sportswriting and Devil’s Dictionary of Sportscasting. Check them out now!

Why does an offensive lineman slap the center's butt in football?

Dear Sports Fan,

Why does an offensive lineman slap the center’s butt in football? I see this all the time now when watching football and I never used to. What changed?

Thanks,
Melvin


Dear Melvin,

The offensive lineman next to the center, called a guard, slaps the center’s butt as part of the elaborate set of signals a team uses to coordinate the snap that starts a football play. The snap has been an evolving practice with league-wide trends and team specific wrinkles. The guard’s slapping of the center’s butt is the latest in a long line of innovations aimed at giving the offense a slight advantage against the defense. Here’s how it works and some of the history behind it.

In the old days, offenses in competitive football used basically the same system we all used when playing football in our backyards as kids. When the quarterback says “hike” the center snaps the ball to him and the rest of the offensive team begins to block or run routes as programmed by the play. As you might expect though, defenses caught on to the meaning of the word “hike” and charged at the quarterback as soon as he said it. So, teams went to great lengths to disguise their signal to snap the ball. They might use different words or alter the number of times the quarterback could say a word before it told the offense the play was starting. Soon though, the popularity of college and professional football, new stadium designs that seemed amplify noise, and the increasingly intentional involvement of screaming fans meant that offenses on the road simply couldn’t hear the quarterback. Offenses had to adjust to the noise and do so while maintaining the advantage of being in sole possession of knowing exactly when the ball is going to get snapped.

There is a simply wonderful article about how offenses adjusted and evolved to this challenge called, The Silent Treatment, by Mark Bowden in Sports Illustrated. I had absolutely no idea, but there was a time when the NFL actually had a rule which said that if the crowd was too noisy, the quarterback did not have to snap the ball. The ref would ask the crowd to quiet down and if they did not, the home team would be penalized. This seems totally crazy nowadays when we expect the home crowd’s noise to be an advantage for the home team by making it impossible for the visiting offense to hear each other. The rule was struck from the books in the early 1980s and from that moment, the defense had a big advantage at home. Offensive coaches had to adjust and finally, one of them did. Bowden tells the story of that adjustment through its integral figure, the former NFL guard and long-time offensive line coach, Howard Mudd.  Mudd was thinking about the problem of coordinating offenses without being able to hear when he talked to a fellow coach who had spent some time coaching football at a school for the deaf. If they could do it, he figured NFL athletes could do it to. He implemented a system called the “silent count.” In this system, the quarterback would give some visual signal to the center (who is looking backwards through his legs.) That would cue the center to raise his head or wiggle it side to side. This visual cue would tell the rest of the offensive line to begin counting: one one thousand, two one thousand, three… and at a pre-set number of thousands or Mississippis, the center would snap the ball to the quarterback while the rest of the team simultaneously began their movements. Mudd’s team, the Indianapolis Colts who had a young Peyton Manning and a great left tackle, Tarik Glenn, adopted Mudd’s silent count so effectively that it became a weapon for them:

The Colts got good at it. Glenn got very good at it. He learned to coordinate the count with the swivel of his head. It was like a dance move. “It made a huge difference,” he says. “It gave me time to face the task at hand. It’s all about timing, and pretty quick I could just feel it.” In fact Glenn started getting off the snap so fast that refs flagged him, claiming he had jumped too early. Mudd defended him. “He would send a man to the league office and have them review it,” says Glenn. “After a while they started to see that I wasn’t offside. Coach Howard didn’t just come up with the silent count, he sold it, to the team and then to the league.”

Like any good innovation, the silent count was soon adopted and altered by teams around the league. According to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Giants tackle Luke Pettigout, “used to like to hold onto Mr. Seubert’s [the guard between him and the center] pinky. He didn’t want to take his eyes off the man he had to defend. When Mr. Seubert saw the ball snapped, he’d free his hand and Mr. Pettigout could go.” The New York Jets, according to NJ.com, are one of the teams who use the innovation you mentioned in your question — the guard hitting the center’s butt: “The center has such an important pre-snap job – identifying the linemen’s attack point for blocking on running plays – that some offensive coordinators don’t want the center to take his eyes off the defensive front. So those coordinators will have one guard look back through his legs for the quarterback’s leg lift. When the guard sees it, he will tap the center, who then begins his head nodding.” So that’s the answer to your question. When the guard hits the center’s butt, he’s relaying a signal from the quarterback to the center to ask him to begin a silent count that will lead to the ball being snapped.

Thanks for the question,
Ezra Fischer

 

How do the NASCAR championships work?

Dear Sports Fan,

I read your Cue Cards series every morning faithfully. This morning you admitted that you didn’t really understand how the NASCAR championships work. Isn’t that your job? Figure it out!

Get on it,
Arturo


Dear Arturo,

You’re right, it’s unforgivable. I should know how the NASCAR championships work! So, I did some research and figured it out. It’s an interesting model. Here’s how it works:

There are 36 races in a NASCAR season. Of these, the final ten are part of the NASCAR championship series, called the Chase for the Sprint Cup. In some ways, these final ten races are just like the first 26 races in the season. Each is its own event with its own results and prize money. For example, the Goody’s Headache Relief Shot 500, run on Sunday, October 26, 2014 had a total purse of $5,036,108 that went out to the forty-three drivers who competed in the race. During the final ten races though, there is another set of standings and results super-imposed on top of the normal race results. This extra structure is the Chase for the Sprint Cup.

The Chase for the Sprint Cup begins with 16 competitors and slowly reduces the field to four before crowning a champion in one final race. The first round consists of three races and is called the Challenger Round. After those three races, four drivers are eliminated and the next round begins. The next round is called the Contender Round, also consists of three races, and has twelve competitors. Once the three races are done, another four drivers fall out and only eight remain. The eight compete in the Eliminator Round, also over the course of three races. The final cut happens and the field is reduced to four drivers for the Championship round which is a single race.

The sixteen driver field is initially chosen based on the results of the first 26 races in the season. Drivers in these “regular season” races are assigned points at the end of the race based on what place they finished the race and whether or not they led during the race. The racers with the most wins in the first 26 races will be given spots in the sixteen driver Chase field. If there are more than 16 winners (which almost never happens,) the winners with the most points will qualify. If there are fewer than 16 winners (because some drivers won a lot of the first 26 races) then the field will be filled in order of the points standings among non-winners. It’s a little convoluted, but basically the best 16 drivers from the first 26 races qualify for the Chase for the Sprint Cup. Before the Chase starts, the 16 qualifiers are assigned points based again on regular season wins. Every driver is given 2,000 points plus three points for every regular season win. This year, the standings at the beginning of the Chase looked like this with Brad Keselowski in first place with 2012 points and a three-way tie between drivers 14-16 who all qualified without having won a single race that season.

At the end of each round until the Championship round, the winners of the three races in the round (note that because each race has the normal complement of 43 drivers, there may not be three eligible winners) automatically advance to the next round and the rest of the available slots are filled in order of how many points they accumulated during the round. At the beginning of each round, the points are reset, so each driver that survives the cut has an equal shot to win the next round. There are no cumulative standings. The final Championship round takes place during a single race at the Homestead-Miami Speedway on November 16, 2014. Of the four remaining drivers, whoever places higher in that race wins the overall Chase for the Sprint Cup.

There are so many things about this format that are interesting. First of all, the idea of having a race within a race — a set of drivers within a field of 43 who care more about beating each other than winning the race is curious. How does that impact the tactics of the race itself? It’s tempting to want to see just the sixteen, twelve, eight, or four drivers still alive for the championships race alone on a track but racing with so few cars on the track probably alters the sport enough to make it unfitting for a playoffs. Still, it’s strange to think of a driver other than one in the final four winning at Homestead-Miami. Then you’ll have two separate victory celebrations happening simultaneously at the end of the race. The Chase for the Sprint Cup is an evolutionary approach by NASCAR to trying to maintain the one-day excitement of their sport while creating the week-to-week suspended drama of a playoffs.

I learned a lot — I hope you did too,
Ezra Fischer

What is pulling the goalie in hockey?

Dear Sports Fan,

What is pulling the goalie in hockey? When and why would a team pull their goalie? Pull him where?

Thanks,
Wayne


Dear Wayne,

A hockey team is said to be pulling their goalie when they substitute their goalie for a regular player. It’s the ultimate move of desperation. It’s a last gasp attempt to win a game. It’s a high-stakes maneuver that can end in disaster or triumph. It takes advantage of what feels like a loophole in the rules of hockey. Here’s what it means and how it works.

How does pulling a goalie work?

Here’s the thing about hockey. Teams aren’t ever actually required to have a goalie on the ice. They could, if they choose to do it, have six regular players on the ice and no goalie the whole time. They’d probably lose 600 to four but they wouldn’t be doing anything illegal. Tradition and sense suggest that teams should have five regular skaters on the ice and one extra player who specializes in preventing the opposing team’s shots from reaching the net. That player is called the goalie and he or she is allowed to wear specialized equipment including a face-mask and super-sized pads. In hockey, substitutions can and do happen any time during the game. Teams don’t have to wait for stoppages in the game to make substitutions like they do in other sports. When a hockey player is tired, he signals to his bench and skates over to it. He climbs onto the bench as another player leaps over the boards and onto the ice to replace him. When a team decides to substitute a regular player for a goalie, it works the same way. The goalie skates to the bench and a regular player replaces him. As with all substitutions, but even more so, the team making the substitution tries to do it at a safe time — when they have possession of the puck and are either in the other team’s end of the rink or headed that way.

Why do teams pull their goalies? And when?

Removing your goalie from the rink seems like a completely crazy thing to do. Good goalies save around 90% of shots on goal, so playing without a goalie makes the opposing team’s shots something like ten times more likely to go into your goal. Offsetting that advantage you’re giving to the other team voluntarily is the advantage you get from having one extra attacking player on the ice. How can we quantify that advantage? Well, playing six vs. five is not so different from playing five vs. four which happens a handful of times each game when a team has a power play. (A power play happens when a player on one team is assessed a penalty and has to sit out for two minutes while her team plays with only four players.) The very best power plays score around 20% of the time. Six vs. five is slightly less effective than five vs. four, so let’s say that teams that pull their goalies increase their likelihood of scoring by 15% per every two minutes they play that way.

Teams usually pull their goalie only if they are down by one or two goals. There’s no reason to pull a goalie if the game is tied or your team is winning and a deficit larger than two goals is too big to make it worthwhile. (One exception to this would be in the playoffs if a team is going to be eliminated by losing the game. In that case, they might pull their goalie down by more than two because… why the heck not?) The exact timing is dependent on where the puck is and who has it but is also up to the coach and may vary quite a bit depending on his or her strategy. Most frequently teams down one goal like to pull their goalies with about a minute and fifteen seconds left while teams down two goals might do it ten or fifteen seconds earlier. On rare occasions, a team might pull their goalie even when it’s not close to the end of the game. There’s an interesting but fairly unusual idea that if you have a five on three power play (the opponent had two players take penalties within a couple of minutes of each other,) pulling the goalie to make it a six on three power play increases the team’s chance of scoring without a significant risk of giving up a goal because the three defenders are so outnumbered.

Does it ever work?

Yes! It does! It’s hard to find statistics about these situations but a 2013 Boston Globe article by John Powers claims that 30% of the goals scored when a net is empty are scored by the team with the empty net. That may not seem like a lot but if the alternative is almost sure defeat, it’s worth a chance. If you scratch a hockey fan, you’ll probably find a triumphant goalie pulling memory not too far below the surface. Mine is Max Talbot scoring in game five of the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals. The Penguins were facing elimination and down a goal, so they pulled their goalie. I was alone, in my living room, fidgeting uncontrollably and quietly freaking out. Here’s what happened:

The Penguins went on to lose the cup that year but I’ll never forget the unlikely triumph of that moment.

Pulling the goalie in non-sports contexts

As with many sports terms, pulling the goalie has been appropriated in popular culture and used in non-sports contexts. In one non-sports context in particular. As confirmed by Urban Dictionary, people use the phrase “pulling the goalie” to refer to the decision to stop using contraception. This is a light-hearted, funny analogy to use when the decision is taken by a couple with consent on both sides, but it has a darker meaning too. Some people use the phrase to refer to one partner making the decision to stop using contraceptives without telling the other person involved, particularly if getting pregnant is part of a strategy to keep a relationship alive. This is obviously despicable in all ways but it is a remarkably well build analogy to hockey.

Thanks for the question,
Ezra Fischer