MTSuper7 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 First, the teams deserve credit for playing a clean game, but it sure was nice to watch a game that wasn't marred by penalties and slowed up by a ton of instant replays. Weird that the only challenge was to review whether or not the Giants had 12 men on the field. And the only penalty that I even remember was a pretty obvious pass interference call in the end zone. Just thinking of the SB in contrast to the NFC Championship game, the officials did a good job of letting the teams play. In a tight, tense game like the SB was throughout, it was refreshing to see the officials take a back seat to the game itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The only call that I recall being missed (or I thought was missed) was when Toomer pretty much punched the NE corner in the face just before he made that great sideline catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha-z Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The only call that I recall being missed (or I thought was missed) was when Toomer pretty much punched the NE corner in the face just before he made that great sideline catch. +1 I was surprised about that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) Actually, I remember another non-call that was suspect. Bradshaw's fumble looked like it was pretty clearly recovered by the Pats. Bradshaw ended up with it after the pile was removed, but it looked pretty obvious IMO that the Pats fell on the ball there. Edited February 4, 2008 by MTSuper7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUChiefsTarheelFan Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Actually, I remember another non-call that was suspect. Bradshaw's fumble looked like it was pretty clearly recovered by the Pats. Bradshaw ended up with it after the pile was removed, but it looked pretty obvious IMO that the Pats fell on the ball there.I saw that too, but the whistle hadn't blown yet. And there are many times, I'm sure, that someone had it in the pile but when the refs break it up someone else comes out with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Maybe there were some missed calls, but that's not why the game ended up the way it did. The calls mentioned here certainly could have gone the other way, as 3 of the false starts could have been ruled caused by the defense, but meh. The false start calls would have been ticky-tack. The line false started because IMO they were intimidated. IMO the biggest missed call was by BB in not attempting the FG on 4-13. That's a tie game with 40ish seconds to play if they make that kick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) Maybe there were some missed calls, but that's not why the game ended up the way it did. The calls mentioned here certainly could have gone the other way, as 3 of the false starts could have been ruled caused by the defense, but meh. The false start calls would have been ticky-tack. The line false started because IMO they were intimidated. IMO the biggest missed call was by BB in not attempting the FG on 4-13. That's a tie game with 40ish seconds to play if they make that kick. i remember what i think was the 3rd because the announcers commented that it could have gone against the D but they were wrong because for it to be encroachment the D HAS to be in the NEUTRAL ZONE....imo, what i saw the Giant D player never entered the neutral zone....and honestly i dont remember seeing a giant do something to force the other 2 false starts ...but then again I have it on TIVO so I think I just might have to watch the game a few more times oh and there was one play in the 1st half where Faulk got a VERY favorable spot for a 1st down when it looked like he was at least a yard shy...so it as always goes both ways but the zebras for once went pretty much un-noticed and that was a good thing. Edited February 4, 2008 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Actually, I remember another non-call that was suspect. Bradshaw's fumble looked like it was pretty clearly recovered by the Pats. Bradshaw ended up with it after the pile was removed, but it looked pretty obvious IMO that the Pats fell on the ball there. At first blush, it looked like the Pats guy had it clean, but there was another angle that clearly showed, to me anyway, that the ball was never 100% within the Pats' guy's grasp and that it seemed to moving when Bradshaw ripped it away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Bushwacked in 3 2 1 .............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 IMO the biggest missed call was by BB in not attempting the FG on 4-13. That's a tie game with 40ish seconds to play if they make that kick. +1 Why even have a FG kicker if you're not going to try a 49 yarder indoors on 4th and 13? That would have put them up 7. I'm surprised there hasn't been more posted about this decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 IMO the biggest missed call was by BB in not attempting the FG on 4-13. That's a tie game with 40ish seconds to play if they make that kick.M&M were talking about that this morning. I don't think that you could simply say that it would be a tie game at :40 if they went for the FG. I think too much time remained on the clock when they didn't go for it on 4-13 and it would have changed the entire dynamics of the game from that point on. Gostkowski is also only a little over .500 in his career in the 40-49 yard range. The FG would have been around 48 yards IIRC. Couple years ago with Vinatieri I would have gone for the FG, but not with Gostkowski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 M&M were talking about that this morning. I don't think that you could simply say that it would be a tie game at :40 if they went for the FG. I think too much time remained on the clock when they didn't go for it on 4-13 and it would have changed the entire dynamics of the game from that point on. Gostkowski is also only a little over .500 in his career in the 40-49 yard range. The FG would have been around 48 yards IIRC. Couple years ago with Vinatieri I would have gone for the FG, but not with Gostkowski. So if the chances of Gostkowski making the FG are 40-50% from that range, did BB think that the chances of converting a 4th and 13 (given how the Giants' D had been playing to that point) were better than 50/50? Now if it was 4th and 2, this isn't so bad. But 4th and 13??? Sorry, but that was a lousy coaching decision. The fact that they ended up losing by a FG only adds to the impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The only call that I recall being missed (or I thought was missed) was when Toomer pretty much punched the NE corner in the face just before he made that great sideline catch. it looked that way until the showed the sideline angle replay, and you could see that toomer really didn't even push off at all. on the other side i remember there being one giants incompletion where the defender clearly hit the receiver a split second before the ball got there and there was no call. but by and large, the officials were hardly noticed and did a great job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Maybe there were some missed calls, but that's not why the game ended up the way it did. The calls mentioned here certainly could have gone the other way, as 3 of the false starts could have been ruled caused by the defense, but meh. The false start calls would have been ticky-tack. The line false started because IMO they were intimidated. IMO the biggest missed call was by BB in not attempting the FG on 4-13. That's a tie game with 40ish seconds to play if they make that kick. I agree +1 Why even have a FG kicker if you're not going to try a 49 yarder indoors on 4th and 13? That would have put them up 7. I'm surprised there hasn't been more posted about this decision. again M&M were talking about that this morning. I don't think that you could simply say that it would be a tie game at :40 if they went for the FG. I think too much time remained on the clock when they didn't go for it on 4-13 and it would have changed the entire dynamics of the game from that point on. Gostkowski is also only a little over .500 in his career in the 40-49 yard range. The FG would have been around 48 yards IIRC. Couple years ago with Vinatieri I would have gone for the FG, but not with Gostkowski. Here's the deal though. The argument for not kicking long FGs is the field position. Is 7 yards worth that much? I mean, it's not like it was 4th and 4. It was 4th and freaking 13! You don't go for it from that length unless you really have to. They really didn't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 i remember what i think was the 3rd because the announcers commented that it could have gone against the D but they were wrong because for it to be encroachment the D HAS to be in the NEUTRAL ZONE....imo, what i saw the Giant D player never entered the neutral zone....and honestly i dont remember seeing a giant do something to force the other 2 false starts ...but then again I have it on TIVO so I think I just might have to watch the game a few more times oh and there was one play in the 1st half where Faulk got a VERY favorable spot for a 1st down when it looked like he was at least a yard shy...so it as always goes both ways but the zebras for once went pretty much un-noticed and that was a good thing. Not worth debating. Typikal tactic trying to bait on part of a post that is intended to give the other team credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 So if the chances of Gostkowski making the FG are 40-50% from that range, did BB think that the chances of converting a 4th and 13 (given how the Giants' D had been playing to that point) were better than 50/50? Now if it was 4th and 2, this isn't so bad. But 4th and 13??? Sorry, but that was a lousy coaching decision. The fact that they ended up losing by a FG only adds to the impact. werd- terrrible call by Billy the genius- how effin cocky can you be?? you know he was thinking they were gonna put some points up and it wouldn't matter. so glad it came back to bite em in the ass. sorry- no way to spin that 4th and 13 at that point in the game is a better call than a 48yd FG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 it looked that way until the showed the sideline angle replay, and you could see that toomer really didn't even push off at all. on the other side i remember there being one giants incompletion where the defender clearly hit the receiver a split second before the ball got there and there was no call. but by and large, the officials were hardly noticed and did a great job. This is what's really important. In too many playoff games in the last 5 years has there been cause to be upset at the officiating. I know that the officials in last nights game were far from my mind in terms of reasons for the loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 i remember what i think was the 3rd because the announcers commented that it could have gone against the D but they were wrong because for it to be encroachment the D HAS to be in the NEUTRAL ZONE....imo, what i saw the Giant D player never entered the neutral zone....and honestly i dont remember seeing a giant do something to force the other 2 false starts ...but then again I have it on TIVO so I think I just might have to watch the game a few more times last year i think it was, they changed the rule and were calling a lot of those on the defense even when they didn't break the plane. but then you saw o-linemen intentionally coming out of their stance when the defensive guy flinched in order to get the penalty. i don't know it for a fact, like i don't think there was a press release or anything, but this season i've noticed them putting those back on the offense if the defensive guy flinches a little bit (and it isn't intentional) and the offensive guy flinches as a result, so i'm thinking there were instructions to the officials that they should be calling it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Anybody see the ref chewing out Seymour after he was giving a little extracurricular activity to Bradshaw after a play? Then he went over to Bradshaw in the huddle for a couple of words as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 it looked that way until the showed the sideline angle replay, and you could see that toomer really didn't even push off at all. on the other side i remember there being one giants incompletion where the defender clearly hit the receiver a split second before the ball got there and there was no call. but by and large, the officials were hardly noticed and did a great job. Toomer was clearly guilty of either a push off or illegal hands to the face ... That having been said, I agree the refs did their jobs well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 +1 Why even have a FG kicker if you're not going to try a 49 yarder indoors on 4th and 13? That would have put them up 7. I'm surprised there hasn't been more posted about this decision. +2. I was amazed about that and those of us in the Chat Room wondered at the time if they'd have cause to regret it later. Turns out they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The only call I questioned was the one where Brady was about to get popped in the end zone and he floated the ball out to a side of the field where there wasn't a single Patriot receiver within 20 yards. I thought it should have been intentional grounding and a safety... but then again I did have the square in the pool that would have made that worth money to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Bushwacked in 3 2 1 .............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 This is a very good post because the officials always catch so much crap. They were not an issue in this game aside from some minor "the way I see it" play or two, they did a very good job I thought. More than anything, I never really noticed them which is exactly how it should be. It was wierd seeing the Pats committ illegal motion penalties though. They usually were more disciplined than that. Or course, Brady normally doesn't spend games picking grass out of his teeth either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I recall a missed call on a sack to Brady... he came down from above and kinda slugged him in the helmet with his forearms. incidental sure, but still a missed call 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.