Dear Sports Fan - Page 17 of 133 - An advice column for people who live with people who live for sports

What is icing the kicker? Why do football coaches do it?

Dear Sports Fan,

What is icing the kicker? Why do football coaches do it? I saw a game the other day where the coach took two time-outs right before a field goal by the opposing team. They made it anyway! What gives?

Thanks,
Terry

Dear Terry,

Close football games often come down to a last-minute or last second field goal kick. If the team attempting the kick makes it, they win. If they miss it, they lose. The defending team has very few options in this situation. Their ideal tactic would be to block the kick but unless you’ve got Jamie Collins on your team (and he gets pretty lucky,) blocking a field goal is virtually impossible. Unfortunately, there aren’t really any other options the defense has. Either the field goal kicker is going to make the kick or he’s not. Without any realistic options, many football coaches are left grasping at straws. And that’s when they ice the kicker.

Icing the kicker is when a coach takes a time-out right before the opposing team’s kicker attempts a field goal. The theory is that this will unnerve the kicker, particularly when the kick is very important, like in the scenario we set up above. The kicker, left to think about nothing but the kick at hand (or should it be at foot?) will start to think about the criticism he’ll face if he misses — will he be lambasted in the media? will he still have a job if he misses? will his teammates hate him? — and, because of that, he’ll panic and miss the kick. It doesn’t work. No, really, it doesn’t work. I promise. And really, why would it work? Professional field goal kickers already spend all game and all week and all year thinking about kicking field goals. Another 30 seconds isn’t going to matter. They know they’re always a missed kick from losing their jobs. The 32 who have made it into the NFL are the ones who thrive under those circumstances.

So, why do coaches persist in doing something that doesn’t work? It’s not because they’re stupid. I think it’s because there’s a strong human preference for action over inaction and also for delaying the inevitable. In our last second field goal scenario, taking a time-out doesn’t help the defending team, but it doesn’t hurt them either. So, perhaps the better question is, why not do it? Especially if no one thinks it’s going to win, they’re not going to criticize a coach for trying. It’s like the old joke about the scientist with a horseshoe on his door who answers a colleagues question about why he bothers hanging it there since he obviously doesn’t believe in superstition. The scientist replies, “well, it can’t hurt.” If you ice the kicker and it doesn’t work, well, we all know it doesn’t work — there’s no regrets. If you don’t ice the kicker and he makes the kick, maybe you wonder if the tactic would have worked, if only in that specific setting. Even if a coach truly doesn’t believe in icing the kicker, he probably doesn’t want to lose more than he doesn’t want to ice the kicker. For the next thirty seconds, at least, icing the kicker is a way to avoid losing.

Thanks for your question — and one last note. In the NFL, coaches aren’t allowed to take two time-outs before the same play. Maybe the coach took a time out, then a play was run, and then he took another time-out right before the kick?

Ezra Fischer

How to plan for the week of Nov 16-22, 2015

If you are a sports fan or if you live with a sports fan then your weekly schedule becomes inextricably linked with what sporting events are on at what times during each week. The conflict between missing a sporting event for a poorly committed to social event and missing an appealing social event to watch a game is an important balancing act in any kind of romantic, familial, or business relationship between a sports fan and a non-sports fan. To help facilitate this complicated advanced mathematics, Dear Sports Fan has put together a table showing the most important sporting events of the upcoming week. Print it out, put it on your fridge, and go through it with your scheduling partner.

For detail on the all-popular, all-powerful NFL, which groups most of its games on Sunday afternoons, see our NFL Forecast.

Download a full-size copy here.

Monday: This first leg of the Ireland vs. Bosnia Herzegovina Euro 2016 qualifying playoff (say that ten times fast) ended in a 1-1 tie that you could barely see on television through the pea soup-thick fog. This game will decide which country qualifies for the most prestigious tournament either is likely to qualify for in the near future. The University of Connecticut women’s basketball team doesn’t need to worry about qualifying for things, they usually just win them. They’ll play an early season game against Ohio State. In the evening, the Monday night football game is likely to be a bit lopsided. Skip it, or watch it on an incline.

Tuesday: If you like soccer, today is going to be a fine day to call out of work and post up in front of the television. One of Sweden and Denmark will be celebrating, one will be walking quietly away and hoping no one notices. England hosts France for what is likely to be the most moving and most friendly of soccer games ever. Hard to imagine watching (much less playing in) that game without thinking about the attacks in France last week, some of which were aimed at a stadium where the French soccer team was playing Germany. In the evening, the U.S. Men’s National Team plays their second World Cup Qualifying match. They won their first one easily but this should be a tougher test.

Wednesday:

Thursday: The Thursday night game in the NFL this week is kind of a dud. Oh sure, the Titans and Jaguars will still get a higher rating than anything short of an unscheduled moon walk but it’s not a promising matchup as far as these things go. Luckily, there are other things to watch — fun college football and basketball games and some tennis.

Friday: Date night! Get your sports viewing out of the way early today, starting with college basketball and brunch! If you don’t have that luxury, there’s more college basketball in the evening, featuring perennial tournament teams: Duke, VCU, Wisconsin, and Georgetown.

Saturday: Even for a fall saturday, this set of games is impressive. College football matches up some of its best teams, like Ohio State and Michigan State, TCU and Oklahoma. Soccer matches up some of its best in the world, with Liverpool and Manchester City playing in the British Premier League and Barcelona and Real Madrid meeting for another edition of El Clasico.

Sunday: Yes, there’s a full slate of NFL games. And on top of that, Major League soccer has the first leg of their semifinals. And, if you needed more excitement, NASCAR’s playoffs culminate with a race in Miami. But, with all that action, the most interesting sporting event of the day is not on TV — it’s a hurling exhibition at Fenway Park. Get your tickets today!

Caveat — This forecast is optimized for the general sports fan, not a particular sports fan. As such, your mileage may vary. For instance, you or the sports fan in your life is a fan of a particular team, then a regular season MLB baseball game or MLS soccer game may be more important on a particular day than anything on the forecast above. Use the calendar as a way to facilitate conversation about scheduling, not as the last word on when there are sports to watch.

One line to fool them all – 11.15.15

Sports talk is frequently used as a common language but it’s far from universal. If you’re someone who doesn’t follow or even understand sports, you can find yourself at a disadvantage in common small-talk situations like in an elevator, waiting for a bus, sitting at a bar, or around the proverbial water cooler at work. Even if you are a sports fan, it’s impossible to watch everything and know everything. To help in these situations, we provide lines to use when engaged in a conversation about all of the high profile sporting events of the day, plus explanations of what they mean.

NFL Football

Jacksonville Jaguars 22, Baltimore Ravens 20

Line: With Luck out for a while, the Jags are right in the hunt with this win.

What it means: The hunt is for the playoffs and, in this case, the division title. Despite being only 3-6 on the year, the Jaguars are still unbelievably in good position because the rest of their division is also not doing so well and the team currently in the lead, the Indianapolis Colts, just lost their quarterback, Andrew Luck, for an indeterminate amount of time thanks to a kidney injury.

Cleveland Browns 9, Pittsburgh Steelers 30

Line: Ben Roethlisberger is an alien.

What it means: Ben Roethlisberger is the quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers. He hurt his foot last weekend and was supposed to miss several games because of the injury. He surprised everyone by being able to practice at the end of this past week and somehow talked his way back into the lineup for this game, but only as a backup quarterback in case of injury to his replacement. Sure enough, his replacement got injured and Roethlisberger came into the game. He played great and led the team to a fairly easy victory. Roethlisberger is known for being tough but this may be his most impressive feat of insane, alien-like healing.

Carolina Panthers 27, Tennessee Titans 10

Line: The Panthers remain perfect and if you look at their schedule… who can beat them?

What it means: By beating the Titans today, the Panthers ensure that they are one of the last two or three (the 8-0 Bengals play on Monday night) last undefeated teams in the league. Although they have not gotten as much press as the other undefeated teams, they may have the best chance of remaining undefeated throughout the season. That’s mostly because the teams they are scheduled to play for the rest of the year are all experiencing losing streaks or just outright bad.

Chicago Bears 37, St. Louis Rams 13

Line: The Bears look great but just wait until Bad Cutler shows his face.

What it means: After a terrible start to the year, the Bears seem to have turned things around. They’re playing well and have won four of their last six games. Their quarterback, Jay Cutler, was nearly flawless in this game. He’s capable of playing that way but he’s also prone to having games where nearly everything he does goes badly wrong. His results seem to be more variable than most talented quarterbacks, so some fans talk about him having a good side and a bad side.

Dallas Cowboys 6, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10

Line: In a matchup between Greg Hardy and Jameis Winston, no one wins.

What it means: The Cowboys and Buccaneers employ the two most recent and high profile scandalous football players. Buccaneers quarterback Jameis Winston came into the league with a history of sexual assault. Greg Hardy, a defensive end for the Cowboys, was convicted of domestic abuse last year, before being signed as a free agent. It’s only a coincidence that this game was a low-scoring, ugly affair, but it’s not a coincidence that I didn’t watch it.

Detroit Lions 18, Green Bay Packers 16

Line: Where were you in 1991?

What it means: That was the last year that the Detroit Lions won a game against the Green Bay Packers in Green Bay. For some pairs of teams, that might only mean a losing streak of six games, but the Packers and Lions are in the same division and therefore play a game against each other in each team’s home stadium every year. That’s quite a losing streak! The Packers almost came back to tie the game in the last second, thanks to a string of unlikely plays, but came up just short. The Packers have now lost three games in a row.

Miami Dolphins 20, Philadelphia Eagles 19

Line: Bradford, Sanchez? Who cares? Kelly’s gone after this year.

What it means: Eagles coach and general manager, Chip Kelly, came into the league with the billing of an offensive mastermind, well earned from his days coaching college. While he has proven that to be true at times, his record of wins and loses as well as his team’s generally desultory play this year is likely to cost him his job. In today’s loss, the Eagles starting quarterback, Sam Bradford, was forced out of the game with a shoulder injury and concussion. He was replaced by backup Mark Sanchez, who some fans have wanted to see in a starting role anyway. I don’t think it matters who starts at quarterback, I think the team has bigger problems.

New Orleans Saints 14, Washington Redskins 47

Line: The Saints continued their streak of allowing lots of points but forgot to score lots as well.

What it means: The New Orleans Saints had been on a weird winning streak before this game. They had won four of the last five games but never held their opponent to fewer than 20 points. It’s as if they decided to admit they couldn’t play defense and focus all of their energy on scoring themselves. That tactic flopped in this game. Their opponent scored lots, but they didn’t. And that, as Yogi Berra would say, is a great way to lose a game.

Minnesota Vikings 30, Oakland Raiders 14

Line: This was a big test but luckily for the Raiders, it wasn’t a final exam.

What it means: Many people viewed this game as a chance to see which of these two up-and-coming teams was “for real.” It’s kind of a silly way to look at the game, because we wouldn’t develop that take unless we thought they both were quite good, but of course only one team will be able to win. The Vikings won but it’s okay to resist the notion that this means the Raiders are bad. Yes, they lost, but they aren’t bad.

Kansas City Chiefs 29, Denver Broncos 13

Line: It’s hard to imagine a worse way to break an NFL record.

What it means: Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning broke the all-time NFL passing yards record in this game. He also threw four interceptions and was pulled from the game in this surprising Broncos loss. Manning and the home Denver fans were robbed of any real celebration on such a dreary day for the team overall. They’ve now lost two games in a row after winning their first seven.

New England Patriots 27, New York Giants 26

Line: It’s never boring when these two teams play.

What it means: The Giants are in the NFC and Patriots are in the AFC, so despite the Boston vs. New York rivalry, there’s really no reason why they should have one of the more storied rivalries in the past decade. Since 2007, the Giants and Patriots have played five times. None of the games have been decided by more than four points. The Patriots have won twice, the Giants three times, but two of the three Giants wins were in Super Bowls. The Giants are the only team that’s ever beaten Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady and coach Bill Bellichick in the Super Bowl. Although marred by a few injuries and bad plays, this game was as suspenseful and entertaining as any in the league this year.

Arizona Cardinals 39, Seattle Seahawks 32

Line: The Seahawks still fight like champions but their results are different this year than from the past two years.

What it means: The Seahawks have been the best team in the league over the past two years. They went to Super Bowls in both years and probably should have won them both. This year, they’re something slightly off. It’s hard to identify and it’s certainly not a lack of effort, but it’s just not working the way it used to. After this loss, they’re 4-5, which is not a terrible record, but they’re also three games behind the Cardinals in their division. It’s going to be tough for them to catch up.

What constitutes offensive illegal motion in football?

Dear Sports Fan,

I’m confused over what constitutes offensive illegal motion in football. Rule 7 – Section 7 states, “No player is to be moving toward the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped.” Does this mean there’s a brief wait period before a backfield player can advance after the snap?

Look forward to your answer,
Dennis

Dear Dennis,

From your reference to Rule 7 – Section 7 in your question, I’m going to assume that you’re interested primarily in the National Football League, not any other type of football. Rule 7 – Section 7 in the NFL rulebook corresponds to illegal motion, a very specific violation of a general rule. In this post, I’ll explain the general rule, then write about the specific violation called illegal motion, and quickly touch on the other common penalties that are similar to illegal motion. At the end, we’ll return to your question about whether a backfield player must wait briefly before advancing after the snap.

The general rule which underpins the illegal motion penalty is that offensive players should be still when the ball is snapped. Although this sounds mundane, it’s actually one of the primary things which separate football from the rest of the popular sports. As opposed to a fluid, constantly shifting game like basketball or soccer, football is a series of set plays, almost like moves in a turn-based board game. The game stops, the teams set up, they go like demons for a short period, and then the pattern repeats. All the stopping and starting can make football seem boring to new fans and lead to the common criticism that football games only have 11 minutes of action but it’s actually the key to football being the most tactically complex and suspenseful sport. When I think about how I watch a football game, the moment between when an offensive team has set up to begin a play and when they snap the ball is the moment when my brain is most active. I’m trying to figure out what’s going to happen – is the offensive team going to run or pass? Will they be successful? Who is going to be involved in the play. Having the offense pause before the play starts facilitates more than just fan interest, it also gives the defense a chance to adjust their formation and plan to match the offense’s. This is essential to keep things somewhat balanced between offense and defense.

Motion is a technical term in football that provides one exception to the rule against the movement of offensive players when the ball is snapped. One player on the offensive team may be moving when the ball is snapped as long as that player is not moving toward the line of scrimmage and he is not a member of the offensive line. You see this somewhat commonly with wide receivers who move from one side of the formation to the other or running backs who move from one side of the quarterback to the other. Illegal motion is what happens when a team attempts motion and fails for some procedural reason. The two main types of failure are the player in motion mistakenly moves toward the line of scrimmage instead of just sideways and the player in motion being ineligible to be in motion because he was originally lined up on the line of scrimmage like an offensive lineman. In all cases of illegal motion, the penalty is five yards.

There are two other types of violations against the principle of offensive stillness. The first is an illegal shift and it’s very similar to illegal motion. Shifting is movement by offensive players before the ball is snapped (instead of during). More than one player is allowed to shift at the same time but they all have to come to a one second stop before the ball is snapped. The other violation is called a false start and it’s what happens when any of the players not in motion make a sharp movement before the ball is snapped. This is most commonly an offensive lineman starting to come out of his stance and move backwards to protect his quarterback.

To return finally to your question about whether the illegal motion rule means that a backfield player like a running back or quarterback has to momentarily wait after the ball is snapped before moving, it does not. Illegal motion only applies to players who were moving before the ball was snapped. As long as they are eligible to move and moving sideways or backwards, they are allowed to continue their motion through the snapping of the ball. All the other players, who were still before the snap, are allowed to start moving in any direction as soon as the ball is snapped.

Thanks so much for reading and keep the questions coming,
Ezra Fischer

One line to fool them all – 11.8.15

NFL Football

Miami Dolphins 17 vs. Buffalo Bills 33

Line: Seems like the Bills just have the Dolphins number.

What it means: The Bills and Dolphins are in the same division, the AFC East division. This means that they play each other twice every year, which makes the games simultaneously more important and more tactically challenging. It’s hard to play a team that knows your tactics as well as a divisional rival does. This familiarity makes it possible, sometimes, for a team to seem like they’ve solved another team the way you or I would solve an easy math problem. So far this year, the Bills have beaten the Dolphins 41-14 and 33-17.

Green Bay Packers 29, vs. Carolina Panthers 37

Line: The Panthers survived, but if Rodgers had had five more minutes…

What it means: If you hadn’t followed this game (or had lines written for you by someone who did) you would have thought the story was the Panthers retaining their undefeated record by outscoring the Packers in a close game. That’s not really the story. The real story is that the Panthers got up to a big lead and then seemed unable to even slow the Packers down as they launched a furious comeback attempt behind their star quarterback, Aaron Rodgers. The Packers come very close to tying the game and given the momentum of the game, if it had been just a little longer, it seems like they would have found a way to do it.

Jacksonville Jaguars 23 vs.New York Jets 28

Line: Surprisingly entertaining for a game featuring Blake Bortles and Ryan Fitzpatrick.

What it means: Neither of the quarterbacks in this game are particularly well thought of among football fans. The Jaguars’ Blake Bortles is a young quarterback who has shown some potential in his time in the league but very little performance. The Jets’ Ryan Fitzpatrick is a veteran quarterback who has played well for several different teams but never well enough to secure a starting job for very long. Despite their lack of star power, both quarterbacks played well today and helped make this a good back-and-forth football game.

St. Louis Rams 18 vs. Minnesota Vikings 21

Line: Justice was served in this win, but the bigger question is when Teddy Bridgewater can come back.

What it means: The Vikings quarterback, Teddy Bridgewater, was knocked out of the game with a suspected head injury after being knocked unconscious a hit by a St. Louis Rams defensive player that most people thought was dirty. Bridgewater had already started sliding feet first when he was hit. When a quarterback (by rule any player but in reality only quarterbacks do this) starts to slide feet first, this signals that he’s voluntarily “giving himself up” or stopping the play. Once he’s started sliding, no one is allowed to hit him. In this game, someone did, and the results were pretty brutal.

Washington Redskins 10 vs. New England Patriots 27

Line: Another Pats win, but how many players can they afford to lose?

What it means: The Patriots are a perfect 8-0 so far this year, but they finished this game having lost their best running back, Dion Lewis, to a scary non-contact knee injury, and were reduced to playing a tight end in their offensive line because of all of the injuries they’ve suffered in that unit. It’s incredibly impressive that they can overcome so many injuries to key players and still win so easily, but fans of the Patriots (and maybe enemies too) suspect there’s a limit to how long the trend can continue.

Tennessee Titans 34 vs. New Orleans Saints 28

Line: Maybe the Saints would be better in the NBA?

What it means: The New Orleans Saints have scored an average of 34.5 points over the past four games, which is an absurdly high number for an NFL football team (okay, maybe not basketball high, but give me and yourself some poetic license!) but they’ve allowed an average of 31.25 points over the same period. That’s also an absurdly high number, and their shoddy defense is the reason why they lost this game today to the not-very-good Titans.

Oakland Raiders 35, vs. Pittsburgh Steelers 38

Line: Two questions: how good will these Raiders be in a couple years and how can the Steelers survive another injury to Big Ben?

What it means: Even in losing, the Oakland Raiders continued to impress neutral football fans and convince us that they’re a young team with limitless potential. The Steelers were built to win now, but they lost their star quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, nicknamed Big Ben, who missed four games with a knee injury earlier this year and left this game with a foot injury. The Steelers are a markedly worse team without Roethlisberger. They found a way to win without him before, but that was before they lost their best running back for the year due to torn ligaments in his knee. It will be quite a feat if they can win without him some more.

New York Giants 32, vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 18

Line: Either the Giants aren’t very good or the Buccaneers aren’t very bad — this game was closer than it looks.

What it means: At one point in the fourth quarter, the score was 20-18. Then the Giants scored two field goals — to make their lead 8, which is still a single possession game — before they scored a touchdown on the final play of the game. That last touchdown makes the score seem like one you’d find in a game with an obvious and convincing winner. This game didn’t really have that.

Atlanta Falcons 16, vs. San Francisco 49ers 17

Line: Not sure the fire everyone the week before the London game gambit is going to work for Jim Caldwell after this showing.

What it means: The London game, which is always followed by a bye week, has become an opportune moment for teams to fire their coaches. As if he knew that might be a possibility and wanted to cut it off at the pass, the Lions head coach fired most of his offensive staff the week before this game. After losing so badly to the Chiefs, this almost blatant attempt to buy himself some time, may not work. Head Coach Jim Caldwell might get fired anyway.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 23, vs. Atlanta Falcons 20

Line: It’s hard to figure out what’s happening to the Falcons — no major injuries, no controversies, just sudden badness.

What it means: The Falcons won their first five games. And then lost three of the next four, including this one. Usually, when that type of fall from grace happens, there’s a clear reason, like an injury to a major player or several minor ones, or some kind of on the field or off the field controversy. None of these factors are present, at least that we know of, with the Falcons. They were good and then they sucked. It’s curious and we don’t have a good answer about why.

Denver Broncos 24, vs. Indianapolis Colts 27

Line: It may be too late for fantasy owners, but it’s not too late for the Colts, especially not in their stinky division!

What it means: The Colts players were popular fantasy commodities (in case you want or feel you need a primer on how fantasy football works, we’ve got one!) and have spent most of the season disappointing their fantasy owners by not accumulating good statistics in their real world games. They played so well today, against what many people think is the league’s best defense, that they looked like a completely different team. It may be too late for fantasy owners who relied on the Colts players for their fantasy teams (because the fantasy regular season is about 3/4 of the way done) but it’s not too late for the Colts to make the playoffs in the real NFL. This is particularly true because, despite their struggles, they’re still in first place of their division. Every other team in their division has lost more than they’ve won.

Philadelphia Eagles 33, vs. Dallas Cowboys 27

Line: And Tony Romo’s MVP case only gets stronger.

What it means: Tony Romo is the Cowboys starting quarterback, or at least he was until the second week of the season when he broke his collarbone. Since then, he’s been recuperating and confined to the sideline, and his team has lost six straight games. Saying he should be voted the league’s Most Valuable Player (MVP) is a little bit of a joke, since the award is really given to the player who has had the best year, for the best team (usually a quarterback), not someone who has had his value proven by getting injured and watching his team completely sink (and stink).

How to plan for the week of Nov 9-15, 2015

For detail on the all-popular, all-powerful NFL, which groups most of its games on Sunday afternoons, see our NFL Forecast.

Download a full-size copy here.

Monday: A strange drought in a flood season for sports. The only high-profile or interesting sports I could find on television is the NFL’s Monday Night Football game between the San Diego Chargers and Chicago Bears. Both teams have been wildly disappointing this year but wildly entertaining nonetheless.

Tuesday: If Monday was a drought, Tuesday is a… something worse than a drought. There’s a good hockey game on tonight and a live fight I know nothing about. Watch the hockey or even better, go to an opera or something.

Wednesday: Now we’re getting somewhere! Start your evening with women’s volleyball, shift over to ice hockey, and then make a night cap out of the San Antonio Spurs playing the Portland Trailblazers in an early-season NBA game.

Thursday: Football, American and soccer sweep back in to rescue the sports week. The World Cup is the biggest international event in men’s soccer, but the European Championships are close. We get to watch qualifying matches for both tournaments today! The best is a World Cup qualifying match between Argentina and Brazil, two of the best soccer countries in the world, at 7 p.m. There’s also a rivalry game in the NFL on national television — the New York Jets vs. the Buffalo Bills at 8:30 p.m.

Friday: Date night! If you live on or near a college campus, you might get caught up in the excitement of another men’s college basketball season beginning. Otherwise, you may be interested in watching the U.S. Men’s National Soccer team begin their run to qualify for the 2018 World Cup. No, they’re not as good relative to their competition as the women are, but they’re still worth rooting for.

Saturday: Lots of good rivalries in college football but none are likely to be bigger than the rivalry game between Denmark and Sweden in European Championship qualifying play.

Sunday: Start your morning with some French Toast and Brazilian Grand Prix action. There’s car racing and golf pretty much all day, plus the normal NFL football, all day too. Sprinkled in are a couple of interesting soccer games. Over in Europe, the once great soccer nation, Hungary, plays against Norway. Closer to home, two men’s college teams will play for the American Athletic Conference championship.

How can I still be a sports fan after Greg Hardy?

The sports blog Deadspin published an investigative story recently by Diana Moscovitz detailing the assault case against National Football League (NFL) player Greg Hardy. It’s a thoroughly dispiriting piece which describes and confirms many of our worst assumptions about human nature and the casual ease with which rich and powerful men in our society take advantage of their privileged positions. In case you haven’t read the piece, here’s roughly what we know:

Greg Hardy physically assaulted a woman, Nicole Holder, who he had been in an on-again, off-again relationship with for two years
Police were called onto the scene by two separate 911 calls, one from a witness, who was concerned about Holder’s well-being, and one from Hardy who claimed that Holder was assaulting him.
When the police arrived, they interviewed the people who were there, including Holder, Hardy, the witness who called 911, and other witnesses. They took photos of Holder’s injuries and also those of Hardy’s. These photos are available on Deadpin as part of their article.
The police eventually arrested Hardy and in 2014 he was convicted of assault.
Hardy later appealed the verdict and, largely because Holder refused to take part in the appeal process, eventually had his conviction overturned. The prosecutors suggested that Hardy had reached an undisclosed civil settlement with Holder in return for her silence in court.
Since then, Hardy has been reinstated to the NFL and signed as a free agent by the Dallas Cowboys. He served a four game suspension after his original 10 game sentence was reduced. He’s back on the field and playing well.

As a sports fan and as someone who spends a lot of time writing about sports for an audience of mostly non-sports fans, in addition to being totally disgusted by reading Deadspin’s article today, I found myself automatically thinking about what a non-sports fan might think about the article. The single biggest question that I imagined non-sports fans asking was, “how can you continue to watch football after reading a story like that?” My answer, and I assure you, I am not being glib at all about this, is that I am proud of sports today.

It’s good that sports are covered so vociferously by the sports media that stories like this are published. Players, coaches, and owners should be well aware of the fact by now that they can’t do something as awful as this and get away with it for long without it becoming known. Not every industry can say this. Take the restaurant industry, for example, which is just beginning to struggle with this issue in the workplace. What part of American life is more closely scrutinized than sports? Maybe politics or the music/movie/celebrity industry can rival sports, but most cannot. The close coverage of sports benefits society as a whole by surfacing a lot of issues which I believe are present in every walk of life.

Money and celebrity equate to great social power which can warp the way society treats a person, even to the extent of changing how police and the court system handle an illegal act.
Many domestic assault victims are vulnerable to private and public pressure that work against the punishment of their assaulter.
Many people are quick to disbelieve or blame a domestic assault victim and equally quick to excuse or forgive the assaulter. This is especially true in cases where the legal system has failed in convicting the assaulter, or even, as in this case, convicted him but lost on appeal.
The extent to which someone is forgiven or excused from having committed assault is affected by their real or perceived value to some element of society.

We need to find ways to break these patterns. How can we strengthen our ethical mores so that we don’t compromise our ethics, even for people who we venerate? How can we particularly empower our legal system to be invulnerable to the appeal of the rich and powerful? How can we ease or reverse the response to domestic assault victims so that we support their recovery and the punishment of their assaulters? How can we convince or force companies to hold employees to a higher standard than that of a flawed legal system without creating modern Red Scares or witch hunts? How can we apply forgiveness without denial and rehabilitate without letting people get away with crimes? How can we do this evenly across society?

We as a society need to answer all these questions together and, while I doubt that sports as a subculture is currently equipped to lead that movement, I am grateful to sports journalists who are at least bringing these problems to the surface persistently and eloquently.

What does down by contact mean in football?

Dear Sports Fan,

What does down by contact mean in football? I hear people talking about it when a player fumbles the ball. Does it have something to do with fumbling?

Thanks,
Bruce

Dear Bruce,

There are two ways for an NFL football player who has established control of the ball to be ruled down by contact. Either contact with an opposing player forces a part of his body other than his hands or feet to touch the ground or a player from the opposing team touches him while a part of his body other than his hands or feet are touching the ground (even if it wasn’t contact with that player that forced him to the ground.) In other words, a ball carrier is down by contact if he’s touched while on the ground or if contact with an opposing player forces him to the ground. In college football, the rules are different, but in the NFL, when these conditions have been met, that play is over and anything that happens afterwards, good or bad for either team, should not count. A player cannot fumble the ball once he is down by contact nor can he score a touchdown or earn a first down. Generally, as you pointed out in your question, if you hear people talk about whether a player is down by contact, it’s because one of those three things may have happened. In this post, we’ll run through a scenario for a fumble and for a touchdown (a first down scenario is identical to a touchdown one) as a means of explaining the down by contact rule.

Is a player down by contact or has he fumbled?

Imagine a wide receiver running down the field. The quarterback delivers a perfect back shoulder pass which the receiver catches easily. He secures the ball, cuts to the middle of the field, and fakes out one defender before being tackled by another. As he’s falling forward, the ball squirts loose and rolls around on the ground for a while before the defender picks it up. The defender runs the ball a few yards up the field before stepping out-of-bounds. He and his teammates are celebrating because they feel they’ve created a turnover and their offense should get the ball. The wide receiver is indignantly yelling at the ref that his knee was down before he lost control of the football. Not to worry, in the NFL all potential turnovers are subject to automatic video replay.

The question for this review is whether the wide receiver should be ruled down by contact or whether he fumbled the ball. The official looking at the video will go through a series of questions about the player in question. First, did he establish control of the ball? Yes, he caught it and then ran a bit with the ball, clearly establishing control. Second, was he forced to the ground by a player on the defensive team? Yes, a defender tackled him. Finally, the key question – was he in possession of the ball when a part of his body other than his hands or feet, in this case, his knee, first touched the ground thanks to the action of a defender? If the answer to that question is yes, then the player did not fumble the ball, he simply dropped it after the play was over — once he was down by contact.

Has a player scored a touchdown or was he down by contact?

In this scenario, a running back takes a handoff from the five yard line. He swings out wide, near the edge of the field, and thanks to some great blocking or trickery by his team, he has a clear path to the end zone. Alas, he trips on an errant tuft of grass. Not to worry, this isn’t college football, where the play is over as soon as any part of a ball carrier’s body other than his hands or feet touch the ground. This is the NFL where the down by contact rule tells us that a player with the ball must be on the ground AND touched by an opponent before the play is over. So, the running back starts wriggling his way toward the goal line. All he has to do is get the tip of the ball to the line to score. As he’s wriggling and squiggling and reaching out to score, a defender runs over and dives at him, touching his back with outstretched arms. The refs call it a touchdown but, since all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, and the ref runs to the video monitor to take a second look.

In this scenario, there’s no question about the ball carrier having possession of the ball. The running back takes it from the quarterback and holds onto it for the entire play. There’s also no question about when the player’s knees, butt, elbows, etc. touch the ground. He falls on his own and then maintains contact with the ground for the rest of the play, crawling along. The only question is when the ball carrier was first touched by an opposing player, which would make him down by contact and end the play. Did the touch happen before or after the ball reached the goal line? After looking at the video and freezing it the moment the ball carrier was touched by a defender, the ref concludes that the ball had not reached the goal line yet. No touchdown is awarded but the offense gets to start the next play with the ball six inches from the goal line, the distance it was when the ball carrier was touched and therefore down by contact.

—

Hopefully these two scenarios have helped to demystify the down by contact rule in the NFL. Show off to your friends the next time the issue comes up in a game you’re watching!

Thanks for reading,
Ezra Fischer

What's the difference between a major and minor penalty in hockey?

Dear Sports Fan,

What’s the difference between a major and a minor penalty in hockey? Is it just how long the penalty is?

Thanks,
Amber

Dear Amber,

Ice hockey has one of the most colorful ways of penalizing players for misdeeds on the ice. The guilty player is sent to sit, alone, on the other side of the ice from their teammates, in a little glass-enclosed prison called the penalty box. While they are there, their team (usually) has to play a player (basically everyone, even in women’s hockey, says “a man down” but we’ll use the more egalitarian “player”) down. Duration is one difference between a major and a minor penalty in hockey, but it’s not the only one. There are actually a few more key types of penalties in hockey: minor, double minor, major, and a confusing category that includes misconducts, game misconducts, and match penalties. In this post, we’ll run through each type of penalty and its consequences.

What is a minor penalty in hockey?

The minor penalty is by far the most common penalty in hockey. It’s given for infractions like tripping, obstruction, goalie interference, and the less violent forms of cross-checking, high sticking, boarding, etc. A minor penalty sends a player to the penalty box for two minutes. During that time, her team will play with a four player unit on the ice called a penalty killing unit, while the other team plays with five players on an offensive-minded power play unit. If a goal is scored by the team with the extra player, during the two minute penalty, the rest of the penalty time is negated and the teams return to even strength — five against five. If another player on the same team commits a penalty while his teammate is still serving a two minute minor, that player joins his teammate in the penalty box and their team plays two players down. The resulting 5-3 power play often results in a goal. If the goal is scored during the 5-3, only the first player to commit the penalty leaves the box, and when play resumes, there will still be a 5-4 penalty.

What is a double-minor penalty in hockey?

A double-minor is exactly what it sounds like — two minor penalties assessed to a single player. This could be for two separate acts. For example, a player could be called for tripping, feel as though it was the result of a dive, get angry at the player who he thinks dove, start a scuffle with that player, and be assessed an additional minor penalty for roughing. The result would be a double-minor: two minutes for tripping and two minutes for roughing. More common is a double-minor assessed for a single act whose violence merits more than two minutes of penalty time. Double-minors are relatively rare and the majority of them are for a single offense: high sticking. High sticking, when one player’s stick hits another player above the shoulders not as part of the follow-through from a shot, is a two minute, minor penalty… unless the player who got hit with the stick bleeds. In that case, it’s a double-minor. This is why you’ll often see a ref go over to examine the player who took the stick in the head or face. Fans of that team will often be rooting for blood to appear. It’s a weird rule. A double-minor behaves like two independent minor penalties, one after another. If a goal is scored during the first two minutes, whatever time is left on that penalty is forgiven and the second two-minute penalty will begin as soon as play resumes. If a goal is scored during the second two minutes, the rest of that penalty is wiped out and the player leaves the penalty box.

What is a major penalty in hockey?

A major penalty is generally one given for a violent infraction with intent. Most are more serious versions of minor penalties. For example, cross-checking, boarding, elbowing, charging, may all be given in minor form or as a major. A major penalty comes with five minutes of penalty time. Five minutes is a lot, but there’s another reason that major penalties are so punitive. Major penalties can never be wiped out by a power play goal. Unlike in a minor or double-minor, when the team with the extra player scores during a major penalty, the penalty continues. No matter how many goals the other team scores, they continue to play with a numerical advantage until the five minutes are up. A major penalty is the one given for fighting, but because fighting always involves two players equally, the two major penalties cancel each other out. Although the two players involved do have to sit in the penalty box, their teams are allowed to continue playing five on five as they would otherwise do.

What are misconduct, game misconduct, and match penalties?

These three forms of penalty are a little complicated but they’re basically all given to players who do dumb shit on the ice. Their primary purpose is to get a player off the ice for either ten minutes (the misconduct) or the rest of the game (game misconduct and match penalty). None of them result in a power play but they’re often given in conjunction with a minor or major penalty. For example, a player who throws a particularly dangerous elbow may be given a major and a match penalty. Both the game misconduct and match penalty result in throwing a player out for the rest of the game but they have different implications for fines and suspensions after the fact. All three types of penalties are relatively rare, but you will see them if you keep watching hockey for long enough.

—

Hopefully this gives you a sense of how the major (no pun intended) forms of penalties work in hockey. The primary difference between them is duration, but what happens when a goal is scored during the resulting power play is another important factor.

Thanks for reading,
Ezra Fischer

Creating a culture of respect: what soccer can learn from rugby

This past weekend, I watched the championship match of the Rugby World Cup, which New Zealand won, 34-17 over Australia. The whole experience was great. Rugby is an awesome sport, full of athletic brilliance and suspense. I also love getting a chance to experience the titillating confusion one gets from engaging with an unknown sport. One of the most striking parts of rugby was the level of respect between the players and the referee. Particularly as someone who has played and watched soccer my entire life, I was astounded at the culture of respect rugby has managed to create. Soccer and rugby are quite similar sports, but the relationship between player and ref is so broken, so fractious, so disrespectful in soccer, that I couldn’t believe how good it was in rugby. What accounts for the difference? Is there something integral to the sport that makes soccer so unhealthy and rugby so healthy? Is soccer doomed to stay that way?

Soccer refs are petty dictators. They’re all-powerful and within the context of the game, completely unaccountable to anyone for anything. Yes, they have two or three linespeople/assistant referees, but those people are there only to provide information to the ref, every decision is hers to make alone. Even something as integral to the game as how long it lasts is controlled completely by the ref. Refs have total authority and their decisions are extremely important. Because soccer is such a low-scoring game, a ref’s decision to grant or not grant a penalty kick is often the difference between winning and losing. Likewise, a decision to give a yellow or red card can be vitally important.

Rugby refs have as much power as soccer refs but they’re infinitely more accountable and their decisions are slightly less important. Rugby is a higher scoring sport, which reduces the importance of most penalty calls. Rugby also does away with soccer’s silly insistence on living in a world where only the ref has the official time. Rugby refs can stop the clock but they do not control when the game is over. Red and yellow cards work similarly in rugby as in soccer, but because there are 15 players on the field, losing one for ten minutes (a yellow card) or the rest of the game (a red or two yellows) is not quite as big of an impediment to winning as it is in soccer. These technical differences pale in comparison to the major difference – refs wear body cameras, microphones, and ear pieces. What they say is constantly broadcast to television audiences and they are in dialogue with a replay official who can assist on penalty calls or even alert the ref of something he did not see. Video from their perspective is available to people watching on TV.

Let’s examine what happens when there’s a close, important penalty call to make in each sport. In soccer, a ref must make the call based only on what she sees, perhaps with some basic assistance from a linesperson who waves his flag if he believes there’s a foul. Soccer refs believe there’s an imperative to make the call quickly and decisively, so that they maintain order and continue to inspire respect from the players. They don’t need to explain their call to anyone, definitely not the players. Rugby treats this situation almost completely oppositely. Rugby refs don’t need to make a call only by memory and with an instant decision. They can stop the game, consult with their assistant refs on the field, watch video of the play, and ask the opinion of a video replay official. Although soccer has not implemented video replay, many American sports have. You can split them into two groups: baseball and hockey have centralized video replay offices that make the decisions when a play is reviewed; in basketball and football, the on-field refs watch video on court side or side-line video monitors and then make the decisions themselves. Rugby blends these two approaches. There is an off-field replay official, but she is there in a consultative role. The ref makes the final decision, based on video he sees. The major difference is this — the entire process is transparent! Audio from the conversation between the two officials is broadcast live on television and instead of running over to peer at a small and private video monitor, the ref reviews video using the stadium’s jumbotron screen, which both teams and the entire stadium audience can follow along with. There are no secrets about the process. By the time the decision has been made, everyone knows how the referee came to that decision.

Look at these videos to see the difference these two processes make.

First, a red card given to Jermaine Jones, a New England Revolution soccer player, after the ref misses an obvious red card.

Jones is understandably furious – not just because the ref should have seen and penalized the hand ball, but also because he knows that soccer rules offer no chance for reviewing this vitally important call. With such little respect between ref and player, there’s no choice for the ref but to throw Jones out of the game.

Compare that to an important call during the Rugby World Cup championship game (alas, this is not available on YouTube, but click this link and head to the 1:40 mark.) Ref Nigel Owens is making a decision about whether to give a New Zealand player a yellow card, forcing him to miss 10 minutes and his team to play a man down. He reviews the call on the video screen in the stadium and confers with his replay assistant. Once he makes his decision, he explains it to the player. He says that the evidence was “not marginal” and that the offense committed is a yellow card offense. He even ends his sentence with a rising, “okay?” seeking affirmation from the player for the decision. Almost unbelievably (to a soccer fan) the player nods, says okay, and heads off to serve his ten minute penalty. The two team captains stand alongside the ref, witnessing and validating the entire interaction.

Quick note — Nigel Owens is widely thought of as the world’s best rugby ref. He’s also gay. It doesn’t seem like a big deal, which is another giant difference between rugby and soccer. He’s also hysterical. Here’s a video of him chiding a player who was trying to affect his calls by reminding him that “this isn’t soccer.” And another of him making fun of a player’s line-out throw (which is supposed to be straight) by referring to his own sexuality.

Fixing soccer’s referee player interactions would be a big enough victory to look for in and of itself, but soccer’s culture of distrust and disrespect has wider implications. One example, and an important one, is the treatment of head injuries. In both soccer and rugby, once a player is substituted out, he cannot return to the field. This makes dealing with a suspected head injury tricky. Removing the player for a proper assessment means either playing at a numerical disadvantage or substituting and losing that player for the rest of the game, even if she doesn’t have a brain injury. Rugby has solved this problem neatly by allowing temporary head-injury substitutions so that players can be assessed and then return to the field if they are cleared without their team’s having to play down. The argument against this solution in soccer is that players could pretend to have a head injury to gain their team an extra substitution. It’s true that rugby teams are allowed eight substitutions compared to soccer’s three, so the incentive to cheat to gain another sub is less in rugby than in soccer, but I think the bigger difference is cultural. Soccer’s culture of distrust, which stems from its player referee interactions bleed over and make it more difficult to transform the game to be safer for its players.

So, where does soccer’s culture of disrespect and distrust really come from? Are ref player interactions really the source of all of this? I doubt it. You need look no farther than its governing body, FIFA, and the rampant corruption which is only now being addressed by international law enforcement. If soccer refs are the symbol of soccer authority and the top soccer authorities are almost unanimously worthy of incarceration, why should we expect players to respect refs?