Thoughts from the NFL Play-offs: In the six NFL play-off games that have taken place thusfar, I have found myself yelling at the television more than I would have liked. This is not because my team is playing -- the Cowboys erased all hope of that long ago. No, my frustration came with coaching strategies at the end of games and in overtime, especially when it came to setting up field goals.



All season long, teams have one goal: score touchdowns. Field goals are seen as consolation prizes: if you get close, but can't quite score, you try for 3 points. But near the end of games and in overtime, why does the focus shift to trying for a field goal? In the Chargers-Jets game last weekend, the Chargers had a first down on the Jets 23 following two big games by Tomlinson. So, do the Chargers keep going with their game plan? No. Instead, the team runs three plays where they look like they are training to gain nothing. The play call seems to have been - "fall down." Your quarterback has thrown only seven interceptions all year. Your running back lost only two fumbles this year. You have a stud tight end that thrives in the red zone. And, most importantly, you have a ROOKIE kicker. Why would you be content on the 23-yard line, when you could try for a touchdown, or at least, move into chip-shot range?



After Nate Kaeding missed the 40-yard field goal, the Jets drove down the field, and thanks to a big play by LaMont Jordan, were set up for a much easier 28-yard field goal. But, obviously, the lesson of trying for the end zone was lost on them.



Fast-forward to yesterday. Jets have played an incredible game against the Steelers and are in a position to win. Granted, their offense has not had a great game -- not scoring a touchdown, but they have managed to pick up yardage near the end of the 4th quarter as the Pittsburgh defense grew more and more tired. The Jets try and score a touchdown with two minutes to go, but are forced to try a 47-yard field goal, which bounces just short off the cross-bar. Miraculously, the Jets get the ball back immediately and in fantastic field position, at the Steelers 36. Curtis Martin immediately picks up a first down, moving the team to the 25, where they promptly give up. Three play calls of "fall down," followed by a 43-yard field goal attempt. No good. And to be clear, time was not a factor, because the Jets let the clock run after 1st down, and then called timeouts.



In overtime, the Steelers got the ball after a Jets punt and moved methodically down the field. Though they were in field goal range after a 9-yard run to the 27, the team continued to run, moving the ball up to the 15 and a much easier 33-yard attempt. Good. Game over.



Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, but it is becoming apparent that NFL coaches are too conservative at the end of games, especially in overtime. Almost anytime a team is in range of a 45-yard or less field goal, coaches are content to stop trying to gain yards, calling plays only to run time off of the clock or to set up their kicker on the appropriate hash mark. But why is this? This season, the number of field goal attempts from 40-49 yards and 30-39 yards were nearly identical: 257 and 258, respectively. But teams made twenty-five more field goals in the 30-39 range, for a percentage of 82%, rather than 72%. Kickers get even better from 20-29 yards. Again, there were a similar number of attempts from this range in 2004 - 252. But NFL kickers missed only nine field goals from this range all season, for a rate of 96%. Yes, professional kickers should be able to make field goals of 40 and 43 yards. But one kicker is a rookie playing in his first play-off game. The other is playing on the road, in a stadium where the longest field goal ever is 46 yards. And he just missed from 47. Why not get closer?



Perhaps Gregg Easterbrook is on to something. His theory is that coaches coach so that they cannot be blamed. If a coach continues to try and score a touchdown, and the result is a turnover, the coach will be blamed. But if the field goal kicker misses, the heat falls on the kicker. I think this may be part of the problem. The solution? Let's start blaming the coaches for going too conservatively at the end of games. Run high-percentage plays. Tell the quarterback to throw out of bounds if he is uncertain. Train the running backs to hold onto the ball. But don't stop trying.



Or, if you are not going to try, then run the kicker out onto the field on first down. This means that he will have less time to think about it, making it more like a regular season kick. It also changes the psychology from one of passivity (we are giving up at this spot) to one of action (we are winning now). It is the difference between trying to win and trying not to lose -- which no doubt rubs off on the team, and the kicker. It also means that if there is a bad snap or the play is broken, the team not only has another chance to kick, but it also has two more downs to pick up more yardage. I think going for the end-zone, or at least, a "chip-shot" kick should be the goal, but if the coach is set on being conservative, just get the kicker out there as soon as possible.



I hope that coaches will learn from these games and understand that field goals of 40+ are no guarantee, especially in a charged play-off atmosphere. A lot of fans will blame Nate Kaeding and Doug Brien this off-season, but let's not forget to address the coaches that could have set them up in better position, but failed to even try.



One Additional Thought: The Falcons will not win the Super Bowl because they committed a cardinal sin of football: running up the score. With 23-point lead, a first and goal, and only 2 minutes remaining, the Falcons could have kneeled 4 times, running out most of the clock and giving the Rams no chance to come back. Instead, they kept their first team offense out on the field and ran the ball in for another touchdown. Jim Mora, Jr. may have won the first play-off game for his family, but he showed little class at the end in doing so. Karma is a funny thing and it will come back to get Atlanta.

Injured Pole Vaulter Sues University: A collegiate pole vaulter that suffered extreme head trauma after a fall during an attempt has sued her university. The suit claims that the university was negligent "in several ways relating to the mainteance and repair of the pole-vaulting pit and that the padding of the pit was inadequate given the hardness of the fieldhouse floor."



I will be interested to see how this suit plays out. After all, pole vaulting is an inherently dangerous sport, and it is unclear (from the article) about whether she was wearing a helmet at the time of the injury. The plaintiff seems to have anticipated such defenses and also claims that the university inadequately trained and supervised its pole vaulters and that its staff was not properly trained to “identify and eliminate risks to students” participating in pole-vaulting events.



The lawsuit will be brought to mediation Jan. 18. If mediation is unsuccessful, a trial is set for Sept. 12.

Mientkiewicz, the Red Sox and the Ball: It has been a hectic week, so I completely missed the boat on blogging about the World Series ball fiasco. I commend to you the fine analysis that the SportsProf has, as well as some of what Prof. Volokh wrote this weekend. Off Wing Opinion also offers an interesting take. My opinion was summarized quite nicely by Paul Finkelman in his op-ed yesterday:

Doug Mientkiewicz, the first baseman for the Boston Red Sox, caught the final out of the 2004 World Series. After celebrating with his teammates, Mientkiewicz ran into the dugout with his glove and the ball. He later gave the ball to his wife, who stuffed it in her purse, and they took the ball home. He now says it belongs to him. It doesn't.



The Boston Red Sox, who won their first championship since 1918 last year, want Mientkiewicz to return the ball. The Red Sox say it belongs to them and their fans. It doesn't.



For most baseball games, the ball is provided by the home team and therefore belongs to the home team - in this case, the St. Louis Cardinals, Boston's opponent. For World Series games, Major League Baseball provides the balls but in effect gives them to the home team to use during the game. Thus, there are only two plausible owners of the ball that Mientkiewicz caught: the St. Louis Cardinals or Major League Baseball.

I recommend the rest of the article, as well as this article from USA Today on where Series-ending balls have ended up in the past. It seems that players have a number of Series-ending baseballs, and only one Series-ending baseball is in Cooperstown. But Mientkiewicz, unless he wants to be shunned by the Red Sox faithful, should donate the ball either to the team or the Hall of Fame. Holding on to it for personal gain seems economically sound, but a bit petty. This is, after all, a special ball and as Indiana Jones might say, "It belongs in a museum!"

The Man Behind the Plan: The Washington Post profiles Allen Lew, the man in charge of the renovation of RFK Stadium for baseball and the construction of the city's new stadium.

Angels Name Update: For at least two weeks, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are still a professional baseball team. A judge denied a temporary restraining order late last week that would have immediately blocked the name change. This is not a surprising development, as these type of orders are difficult to get. The judge ruled that the city would not be irreparably harmed if the team used its new name until the hearing in a fortnight.



The next step, the injunction hearing, is key to the legal battle. A loss by the city of Anaheim at that level would be disastrous, as the team could operate as Los Angeles for a year or more, until the completion of a trial. The team has already announced that it should be referred to as "Los Angeles" or "LAA," as opposed to Anaheim or "ANA." This move surprises me, as it seems to bolster the city's argument that the team is getting rid of the Anaheim name, which seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of their contract with the city. A more prudent move may have been to wait the two weeks until the hearing, but baseball owners are not always known for being practical.



Depending on the outcome of the hearing, some kind of settlement may be reached, but exactly what terms each party will demand remains to be seen.



The LA Times has more on the reason behind the name change: increasing revenue.

The Yankees Get Johnson- So What? The big news on SportsCenter this morning was that the Yankees have signed Randy Johnson. The debate then became, how could the Yankees not win the World Series?



I just don't understand this argument. Perhaps it is just the New York-focus of the media, but have we not learned anything from last year's LA Lakers? A slew of all-stars does not guarantee a championship by any means. Plus, the Yankees have three starting pitchers that are 37 years of age or older. They are one wrecked shipment of Ensure away from being a third place team. Perhaps they will win the World Series, but any idea that the Yankees are the prohibitive favorite seems just silly.

Not a Defamatory 'Evel': Famous daredevil Evel Knievel had his lawsuit against ESPN thrown out by a federal appeals court yesterday. Knievel and his wife had sued ESPN for defamation stemming from a caption to a picture posted on its website (which has since been taken down). The picture, of Knievel and his wife, had a caption that read: "Evel Knievel proves that you're never too old to be a pimp."



Knievel took offense to this, claiming it damaged their reputations because it implied the couple was involved in illegal prostitution. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the caption and other related material was humorous and in no way intended to be taken as factual. In fact, the court looked surprisingly up with modern slang in its analysis.

The same reasoning applies in this case. Although the word “pimp” may be reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning when read in isolation, we agree with the district court’s assessment that “the term loses its meaning when considered in the context presented here.” As discussed in more detail herein, the term “pimp” as used on the EXPN.com website was not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment.

I think the law clerks might have had something to do with this interpretation, although the judge looks like a pretty hip guy.



In any case, the court felt the First Amendment protected the speech, as it should. This was clearly intended to be humorous and satirical. No reasonable person would take the caption to imply that Knievel was pimping his wife. After all, she's not that good looking.



Hat Tip: Prof. Andre Smith