Sgt. Ryan Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 The game should have never been close. 21-6 at halftime, would take a complete collapse by the Pats to lose, and they did just that. In fact looking at the replay of the Colts challenged TD, there is no way that WR was coming down in bounds, and the pats got a huge gift right there to make it as close as it turned out to be. In my view, the Pats have benefitted from terrible no calls in the past, especially vs the Colts in years past, as well as the so called Tuck Rule, that was a complete fumble, any way you look at it. The Tuck Rule is exactly like the horse collar, it has rarely been called, and it happens more often than it has been called. So the discretion that was a Tuck Rule in that game, could have easily been a fumble by another official. The Pats are by far the worst team to win 3 Championships, and are as boring and ordinary as any champion outside of Baltimore in 2000. Im ashamed the Pats were ever champions of the sport I love so much. Its basically ends the football season with mediocrity at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piles Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) The Pats lost - end of story... I agree the call was blown but doesn't change the fact that the Pats had their chances and didn't get it done. I don't think many fans (outside of Pats fans) will think if the Colts win it will be tainted in any way. Edited January 27, 2007 by Piles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 The game should have never been close. 21-6 at halftime, would take a complete collapse by the Pats to lose, and they did just that. In fact looking at the replay of the Colts challenged TD, there is no way that WR was coming down in bounds, and the pats got a huge gift right there to make it as close as it turned out to be. In my view, the Pats have benefitted from terrible no calls in the past, especially vs the Colts in years past, as well as the so called Tuck Rule, that was a complete fumble, any way you look at it. The Tuck Rule is exactly like the horse collar, it has rarely been called, and it happens more often than it has been called. So the discretion that was a Tuck Rule in that game, could have easily been a fumble by another official. The Pats are by far the worst team to win 3 Championships, and are as boring and ordinary as any champion outside of Baltimore in 2000. Im ashamed the Pats were ever champions of the sport I love so much. Its basically ends the football season with mediocrity at the top. jesus christ...shut the <This word is why I am now banned> up you fagit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 I'm happy that we were able to discuss this issue in a civil manner, but I have to agree with Menudo that your "Does this tarnish the Colts win?" question was meant to ruffle feathers. I don't even understand why a Pats fan would ask that, given what happened in the '03 AFC Championship Game and the ensuing Point of Emphasis (where the league basically admitted that the refs blew SEVERAL calls that game). I can understand why you would be upset about those calls last Sunday, but you're coming off as a sore loser here. If that's the way you want to look at it. I can't stop that. The funny thing is that I am not (very much, anyways) upset over those calls. I think my team had a chance to win, and didn't pull through. Nobody asked me yet if I thought it tarnished their win. I don't. But the point is out there, so why isn't it worthy of discussion? If I had asked if people thought the Duke win last week was tainted because (whatever official was appropriate) acknowledged that the clock was completely botched, it would be a very similar question. Honestly I think the answer would swing much to the 'tainted' side of the discussion if that were the question. Or...nobody in this forum would care...either way. I personally have a much bigger issue with the Duke incident on principal than I do with the NFL admitting botching this call, as in that game the other team just didn't have the time to come back and make a difference. But the principal of significant external factors affecting the game is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 The game should have never been close. 21-6 at halftime, would take a complete collapse by the Pats to lose, and they did just that. In fact looking at the replay of the Colts challenged TD, there is no way that WR was coming down in bounds, and the pats got a huge gift right there to make it as close as it turned out to be. In my view, the Pats have benefitted from terrible no calls in the past, especially vs the Colts in years past, as well as the so called Tuck Rule, that was a complete fumble, any way you look at it. The Tuck Rule is exactly like the horse collar, it has rarely been called, and it happens more often than it has been called. So the discretion that was a Tuck Rule in that game, could have easily been a fumble by another official. The Pats are by far the worst team to win 3 Championships, and are as boring and ordinary as any champion outside of Baltimore in 2000. Im ashamed the Pats were ever champions of the sport I love so much. Its basically ends the football season with mediocrity at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 are you kidding. If that is the case, 2 of the 3 Pats SBs were tainted. Tuck Rule, mugging Colts WRs in NE, those were as flukey and horrible called games, Ive ever seen. As a Rams fans, I MUST agree with this. Cheatin Bastiches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Sorry Nick, that is not a fishing expedition. Not even close. Its how many see things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Sorry Nick, that is not a fishing expedition. Not even close. Its how many see things. Then either you and 'the many' that feel that way are either displaying a bit of not knowing as much as they like to project or flat out just not looking at the facts.... The Pats are by far the worst team to win 3 Championships, and are as boring and ordinary as any champion outside of Baltimore in 2000. Im ashamed the Pats were ever champions of the sport I love so much. Its basically ends the football season with mediocrity at the top. ...or you must think football as a whole sucks the largest monkey nuts in the history of the planet. Consider that the Pats are the winningest team in the NFL since 2001, both in regular season record and championships, and they are the only team in that timeframe to be above .500 every season. Yeah...they're terrible IMHO, the answer is more likely to be the former. Or...your post was a fishing expedition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) If that's the way you want to look at it. I can't stop that. The funny thing is that I am not (very much, anyways) upset over those calls. I think my team had a chance to win, and didn't pull through. But the point is out there, so why isn't it worthy of discussion? It's not that it isn't worthy of discussion. I agree that they were bad calls. The problem is in the way that you presented the question. Nobody asked me yet if I thought it tarnished their win. I don't. Then why did you even bring it up? Three years ago, the Pats beat the Colts and were aided by some poor officiating. Last Sunday, the Colts beat the Pats and were aided by some poor officiating. Can we just leave it at that and knock off the "tarnished win" rhetoric? Jesus, you're starting to sound like one of those whiny liberals from Seattle. Edited January 28, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) It's not that it isn't worthy of discussion. I agree that they were bad calls. The problem is in the way that you presented the question. How else should I have brought it up? Should I have ignored it? Then why did you even bring it up? I guess so Three years ago, the Pats beat the Colts and were aided by some poor officiating. Last Sunday, the Colts beat the Pats and were aided by some poor officiating. Can we just leave it at that and knock off the "tarnished win" rhetoric? Jesus, you're starting to sound like one of those whiny liberals from Seattle. Bill, I am really making an effort not to poke a stick at you and get into a fight, but let's get real here. You have been bringing that same subject up at every opportunity since that game. After this last game, and I can point you to the many quotes if you like, I said something to the tune of "Yep, there were bad calls. The Patriots still had their chances and choked. Congrats Colts". I didn't cry about it, and have not once typed "The pats would have won if not for 'X' bad call. For the last several years I have been hearing people cry about bad calls in games, talking about how this team or that team didn't deserve a win because they think/perceive/whatever about the officiating. You and most of the Colts Fans are among these people. Almost all the Seattle fans are among these people. Most Patriots fans are among these people from the aftermath of the loss in Denver last year. I would count myself among them. Most of us have cried at one point or another about the officiating. Heck, even Menudo cried when Polamalu didn;t get the Fumble recovery in the game against the Colts last year, and his team won. So I am asking if the NFL admitting a mistake makes a difference in how people think? What's wrong with that? Is it that I am a Pats fan that makes it wrong for me to bring the point up? Isn't it possible that I am just asking how/if this changes people's perceptions? Edited January 29, 2007 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) Bill, I am really making an effort not to poke a stick at you and get into a fight, but let's get real here. You have been bringing that same subject up at every opportunity since that game. And I've also consistently stated that the Pats won because they had a superior defense, superior special teams, and they could control the line of scrimmage. I slammed the officiating like hell, but I NEVER suggested that the Pats didn't deserve to win or that their victory was "tainted" in any way. Complaining about bad officiating is one thing, but suggesting that the team that benefitted from a couple of bad calls may not have deserved to win the game is wrong. Don't lower yourself to the level of Seahawks fans. So I am asking if the NFL admitting a mistake makes a difference in how people think? And why would you wait until now to ask this? Why didn't you ask it three years ago when YOUR team was the beneficiary? How ironic that Pats fans all over this board (not necessarily you) mocked Bill Polian for complaining about the bad officiating in that game, and now one of their own is doing the same thing in this thread three years later. Heck, even Menudo cried when Polamalu didn;t get the Fumble recovery in the game against the Colts last year, and his team won. You may not remember this, but I disagreed with the call as well. And speaking of Menudo, who doesn't have a vested interest in either of these teams, he thinks that you're complaining about this in an underhanded way as well. What does that tell you? Is it that I am a Pats fan that makes it wrong for me to bring the point up? To your credit, you've been pretty good about this. But given what happened in the '03 AFC Championship Game, I don't think that it was wise for you to use to suggest that this victory may have been a "tainted" one for the Colts. Whether or not YOU believe it was tainted or not isn't the point - the fact that a Pats fan threw the question out there for "discussion" is. Edited January 29, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heydave76 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 NFL:Hobbs call OK link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 NFL:Hobbs call OK link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 The refs once again took control of a game IMO.the lack of a pass interference is not the big deal to me...it is the positioning the ref has on the play and still a no call that bothers me. he seen it..and just flat out did not call it. We seen it twice last year in the playoffs...1st the refs tried to give Indy a win vs Pittsburgh and then they give the SB to the Steelers. I know this will not be popular comment but I have come to the conclusion that the league tries to push certain teams that are popular(like the Colts). I mean, if you can...go replay almost any Saints game this year and pay very good attention to the refs. unless you are in denial you will see it. People are gonna say..well why do you even watch football if you believe that is the case..my answer will be gambling and fantasy football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) And why would you wait until now to ask this? Why didn't you ask it three years ago when YOUR team was the beneficiary? Because I never once read anything from anyone associated with the NFL stating that mistakes were made. Add to that the frequency with which folks around herer have been complaining for the last three years, and then add in the bit from Vic Ketchman, and there is the formula. You may not believe this, but if the game and a call had gone the other way, and I had gotten wind of a similar discussion I would have been pretty likely to post that as well. I may be a big homer as far as cheering for my team and sticking up for my players, but I also try to be fair with my points. I leave the rest of it to the Tunas. And speaking of Menudo, who doesn't have a vested interest in either of these teams, he thinks that you're complaining about this in an underhanded way as well. What does that tell you? It tells me that Menudo doesn't like discussions regarding 'tainted wins... To your credit, you've been pretty good about this. But given what happened in the '03 AFC Championship Game, I don't think that it was wise for you to use to suggest that this victory may have been a "tainted" one for the Colts. Whether or not YOU believe it was tainted or not isn't the point - the fact that a Pats fan threw the question out there for "discussion" is. And anyways...I'm just sayin', time to get over '03... Look, there's even a small part of me rooting for the Colts this weekend, It's tough, because my hatred for the Colts is old, but with that comes a kind of respect. And rooting for da Bears just feels...wrong. I can't say any more ways that I am not upset over the officiating or the game. I have my own thoughts on whjy the Pats lost, and most of it has to do with the team plain old running out of gas and not being able to do what they needed to do when the time was at hand. And Kudos to the Colts for wearing them down (and maybe a fruit basket from the Colts to the Chargers). I thought it was an important point to bring up. And in the case of missed officiating, there are only two sides...the side that thinks it mattered and the side that doesn't. Edited January 29, 2007 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 "And I've also consistently stated that the Pats won because they had a superior defense, superior special teams, and they could control the line of scrimmage." im not tryna slam or pick a fight with swerski....but i could swear that almost every time ive seen him make that statement, its when someone makes fun of manning or says that brady is better than manning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) NFL:Hobbs call OK link Interesting... From here Jacob from Weymouth, MA: “He was face-guarding. You’re not permitted to do that. It’s been that way forever. You can’t shadow a receiver for the purpose of blocking his vision of the ball. That’s what Hobbs was doing. It was an easy call.” Vic, you should check your NFL rules book. Face-guarding was made legal in the NFL six or seven years ago. Learn the rules before you make blatantly wrong claims.Vic: I bow to your superior intellect. I checked out what you are saying and you are absolutely correct. Face-guarding was discontinued several years ago and I completely missed it. I talked to Dean Blandino in the league office and he confirmed what you’re saying. Blandino, by the way, was in the replay booth at the Patriots-Colts game. Ellis Hobbs should not have been flagged for pass-interference. He didn’t make contact with the receiver and in no way did Hobbs impede Reggie Wayne’s ability to catch the pass. Blandino confirmed that the incorrect call was made. It advanced the ball from the Patriots’ 19-yard line to the one-yard line and was the big play in a touchdown drive that led to a two-point conversion and a tie game at 21-21. Referee Bill Carollo made no reference to face-guarding in his explanation, but CBS analyst Phil Simms did. Apparently, he, too, doesn’t know the rule no longer exists. The next time you hear a TV analyst say, “he wasn’t playing the ball,” think of the Hobbs play, then turn down the sound. Sounds to me like the league is backpedaling to avoid a scandal. I mean, what would the replay official looking at each angle of the tape know? Edited January 29, 2007 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heydave76 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I don't know if the call was actually correct or not. I think in most instances the NFL is going to find a way to back their referees call in a game. However this whole thread was started with the claim that the NFL had admitted that the call was wrong. I just posted the link to show that was not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) Because I never once read anything from anyone associated with the NFL stating that mistakes were made. Good Lord! So what do you supose the whole Point Of Emphasis on pass interference and illegal contact at the beginning of the '04 season was all about? Was that not an admission that the referees were not enforcing the rules as they should have been? Like I said before, the Pats benefitted from bad officiating and won three years ago. The Colts benefitted from bad officiating and won seven days ago. IMO, the better team won in both cases. Either way, we're even now, so let's just leave it at that. "And I've also consistently stated that the Pats won because they had a superior defense, superior special teams, and they could control the line of scrimmage." im not tryna slam or pick a fight with swerski....but i could swear that almost every time ive seen him make that statement, its when someone makes fun of manning or says that brady is better than manning Um, yes, teams that play well on defense, play well on special teams, and control the line of scrimmage tend to garner more victories for their QBs. And your point is...? Edited January 29, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Nick, since you ask for a simple answer, my answer is NO...it doesn't "taint" in any way. Now, I gave you my answer and no I'll give you my opinion. The users in this thread I agree with: Hook: It's listening to Pats fans whine. Menudo: Quit being a sore loser. Swerski: I pretty much agree with everything he said, he's consistent in what he has said overr the years. Sarge: I agree with what he said, and the reason I agree is directly the way I feel about the Pats and there fans. You aren't whining that's why you tried to ruffle feathers by suggesting something would be "tainted". You are coming off as a sore loser here man, and you can go back and quote anything you've said about how Colts were better, deserved to win blah blah blah, but it's this post, the way you phrased it and won't give up argument. YOUR team LOST, it's over......Seahawks fans had a reason to whine, but a PATS fan bringing up this discussion or even suggesting many of the things you have just by the way you said things is hysterical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 I don't know if the call was actually correct or not. I think in most instances the NFL is going to find a way to back their referees call in a game. However this whole thread was started with the claim that the NFL had admitted that the call was wrong. I just posted the link to show that was not the case. Yes, and in this case I am calling backpedalling by the league. See above. The official that made those comments to the person writing on the Jags website is an utter moron. Of course the league needs to come out and refute those statements now. otherwise it could become a serious hornet's nest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Good Lord! So what do you supose the whole Point Of Emphasis on pass interference and illegal contact at the beginning of the '04 season was all about? Was that not an admission that the referees were not enforcing the rules as they should have been? Like I said before, the Pats benefitted from bad officiating and won three years ago. The Colts benefitted from bad officiating and won seven days ago. IMO, the better team won in both cases. Either way, we're even now, so let's just leave it at that. Um, yes, teams that play well on defense, play well on special teams, and control the line of scrimmage tend to garner more victories for their QBs. And your point is...? There's a big difference, however, between the two. The PI calls had been called that way the entire season, and the Patriots DBs had been playing like that the entire season, and for season's previous. Ask the Rams. It was afer Polian complained, and probably rightfully so, that the Point of Emphasis was enacted. The rule was not being enforced, but it was not being enforced equally to all teams. It's like the hand checking rule change in hockey a couiple of years ago, or the 'handsy' play on D in basketball. The rules were not being enforced league wide. In this year's case we're talking about a single call that was, imo, called incorrectly. The league has admitted a wrong doing, which doesn't change anything. And before you jump down my throat, that Pat's lost to the better team and the officiating didn't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Heck, even Menudo cried when Polamalu didn;t get the Fumble recovery in the game against the Colts last year, and his team won. Not that is a big deal, but, that isn't accurate. I actually said that despite that being the worst call ever, I would not have blamed their loss on it. There was a lot of foltball to play after that missed call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I don't know if the call was actually correct or not. I think in most instances the NFL is going to find a way to back their referees call in a game. However this whole thread was started with the claim that the NFL had admitted that the call was wrong. I just posted the link to show that was not the case. Yes, but, your fact got in the way of his whole argument.......... so, of course it was some sort of cover-up by the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I fear that any opinion I offered would be tainted by my intense hatred of Tom Brady and the Patriots, and the way the Steelers won Superbowl XL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.