An unbiased look at "The Call/Non-Call"

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaxpat. Show jaxpat's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its all right here...read it an weep.

    http://www.patspulpit.com/2013/11/19/5121100/rules-breaking-down-the-final-play

    [/QUOTE]


    Look at the picture embedded in the link.  It clearly demonstrates the LB made contact prior to the ball being intercepted.  Contact was made with Gronk with the ball at least 10 feet from the interception point.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    You can't get anymore unbiased than a picture showing FACTS.....!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    What I want to know is they said Gronk had no chance to turn and catch the ball, well walking the vid Lester took a steo backwards too and managed to cut forward, maybe it's because he planted his foot the same as Gronk did before Kuechly tackled him and if Kuechly wasn't there Gronks position would have put him right where the ball would have landed. Lester still most likely would have int it because of the inside cut however, PI is taking the chance the player could catch it, not if he would have, and clearly Gronk would have had a chance if not interferred with

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Anyone with half a brain knows the call was wrong, and we were robbed of having 1 more shot. Unfortunately, it's over, and will never be changed. Arguing with a handful of internet d-bags coming here to simply stir the pot is pointless. Does anyone really believe you'll change the minds of these trolls here? Stop wasting you time replying to these tools...

    I hope the Pats can put this BS behind them, and concentrate on the task at hand....Denver. This BS call really doesn't matter at this point....nobody can change it. Let the trolls have there fun.....alone. Keep feeding them, and they will stay.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichFan. Show MichFan's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Jeesus,  what was this clown looking at that started this.  Gronk was first pushed then held long before the turd intercepted the ball.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichFan. Show MichFan's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Unless it was answered earlier, he is right about holding.

     Holding only can occur before the ball is thrown.  After the ball is thrown and a guy is being held (Gronk) it is interference.  And obvioulsy we all know the difference is where the ball is spotted.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow, an unbaised opinion from a guy with a screen name called PatsGetScrewedFinally.... yeah unbiased 

    But, just to give you some actually facts of the situation:

    1) Brady didn't leave the pocket. The pocket is defined as an imaginary box that extends from the LoS backwards indefinately in which the sides are defined by the starting position of the T's. Watch the play again and Brady never traveled beyond the starting position of the LT so no it wasn't outside the pocket

    2) The ball was never tipped at the line and was actually never touched until the int which occured after the contact. So your first point is completely wrong to begin with.

    3) We've now had the former head of officals, formers officals, HoF ex-players, and former SB winning coaches all come out and say the refs got it wrong picking up the flag. So, I trust all of them since you know they were all heavily involved in the game.

     

    although I find it hillarious you post this:

    As far as the Hobbs call goes it is in the rulebook.  It says you have don't play the ball and make contact with the receiver then it is pass interference, so the call they made was correct.  Albeit, the contact (I believe his hand came down on his shoulder) came after the ball went by, but the rule doesn't specify when the contact has to be made. 

    and still believe you are right after that. According to your own definition Kuechly wasn't making a play on the ball and made contract with a player who could have made a play on the ball if not for interference so by your own definition of Hobbs then it was PI!

    [/QUOTE]
    I had some points I wanted to make here  ...  but you just made all  of them. So I'll just say,  "What he said!"

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Post game: 7 out of 7 espn guys say blown call.  Ray Lewis, John Gruden, et. (Pat's lovers)

    next morning:  mike & mike both think its a blown call.  Greenie openly says he hates Pats but.....

    noon: Steven A and Scott B.  Blown call

    .......so far it's unanimous  

    Around the horn:  5 for 5 blown call.  Openly scoffing at any one who would stay otherwise.

    PTI:  what do you know, both guys say blown call.

    Mike Pereira .. Wow first time he didn't say the refs were right that I can remember.

    FAN OF ANOTHER TEAM:  says no foul.  But he claims no bias.  Got to go with the fan and his flawed logic. Right?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First of all let's explain a few facts then we will discuss the play. 

    1) If a ball is tipped during a pass then there is no such thing as pass interference.

    2) Holding and illegal contact can only be called before the ball is in the air.

    3) Pass Interfernce can only be called once the ball is in the air.

    During this play there was no contact of Gronk before the ball was in the air, so illegal contact or holding cannot be called on that play.  The contact on Gronk didn't happen until the ball was in the air and Gronk was in the endzone.  The issue here is the ball was intercepted (thus touched) so based on fact #1 above, you can't have interference.  The other issue at play here was the fact that the pass was grossly underthrown and if you are fair to yourself you will understand there is no way possible Gronk could have caught the ball, which is why you hear all this "uncatchable" talk from the talking heads. 

    Bottom line is the whether or not you believe the "uncatchable talk" or not, the ball was touched prior to it getting to Gronk so it cannot be pass interference.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't believe this is correct.  If the ball is touched prior to it getting to the receiver because the receiver is impeded by the defense from getting to the ball, then I think interference is still in play which makes the catchable/uncatchable question relevant. 

    Ultimately, this comes down to a pick your poison question - should the refs let players play or should they make calls when penalties occur?  In the patriots last loss, the board, in general, complained about a call that was correctly made on a Jets FG try.  Had no penalty been called, the pats would have cruised to victory.  At that time, this board was very upset that any call was made believing that the refs should have "let players play" at that critical time of the game. 

    Well, that mentality played itself out in the last game but now the board wants something different.  Now the board wants the call.  It should be one or the other - not both.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    get over it losers!

    [/QUOTE]

    So let me get this straight......you come here to do nothing besides stir the pots because you have no life what so ever, and you are calling us losers? Spending your time on a rival teams message board due to having nothing better in your life to do?

    Hmmm...how ironic

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First of all let's explain a few facts then we will discuss the play. 

    1) If a ball is tipped during a pass then there is no such thing as pass interference.

    2) Holding and illegal contact can only be called before the ball is in the air.

    3) Pass Interfernce can only be called once the ball is in the air.

    During this play there was no contact of Gronk before the ball was in the air, so illegal contact or holding cannot be called on that play.  The contact on Gronk didn't happen until the ball was in the air and Gronk was in the endzone.  The issue here is the ball was intercepted (thus touched) so based on fact #1 above, you can't have interference.  The other issue at play here was the fact that the pass was grossly underthrown and if you are fair to yourself you will understand there is no way possible Gronk could have caught the ball, which is why you hear all this "uncatchable" talk from the talking heads. 

    Bottom line is the whether or not you believe the "uncatchable talk" or not, the ball was touched prior to it getting to Gronk so it cannot be pass interference.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't believe this is correct.  If the ball is touched prior to it getting to the receiver because the receiver is impeded by the defense from getting to the ball, then I think interference is still in play which makes the catchable/uncatchable question relevant. 

    Ultimately, this comes down to a pick your poison question - should the refs let players play or should they make calls when penalties occur?  In the patriots last loss, the board, in general, complained about a call that was correctly made on a Jets FG try.  Had no penalty been called, the pats would have cruised to victory.  At that time, this board was very upset that any call was made believing that the refs should have "let players play" at that critical time of the game. 

    Well, that mentality played itself out in the last game but now the board wants something different.  Now the board wants the call.  It should be one or the other - not both.

    [/QUOTE]


    You really aren't too bright Colts troll. And your dishonesty is legend here.

    When the game is on the line you call blatant fouls that effect the outcome. You do not call chippy little wan-ker penalties that can be called on every play in the game. Got it?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First of all let's explain a few facts then we will discuss the play. 

    1) If a ball is tipped during a pass then there is no such thing as pass interference.

    2) Holding and illegal contact can only be called before the ball is in the air.

    3) Pass Interfernce can only be called once the ball is in the air.

    During this play there was no contact of Gronk before the ball was in the air, so illegal contact or holding cannot be called on that play.  The contact on Gronk didn't happen until the ball was in the air and Gronk was in the endzone.  The issue here is the ball was intercepted (thus touched) so based on fact #1 above, you can't have interference.  The other issue at play here was the fact that the pass was grossly underthrown and if you are fair to yourself you will understand there is no way possible Gronk could have caught the ball, which is why you hear all this "uncatchable" talk from the talking heads. 

    Bottom line is the whether or not you believe the "uncatchable talk" or not, the ball was touched prior to it getting to Gronk so it cannot be pass interference.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't believe this is correct.  If the ball is touched prior to it getting to the receiver because the receiver is impeded by the defense from getting to the ball, then I think interference is still in play which makes the catchable/uncatchable question relevant. 

    Ultimately, this comes down to a pick your poison question - should the refs let players play or should they make calls when penalties occur?  In the patriots last loss, the board, in general, complained about a call that was correctly made on a Jets FG try.  Had no penalty been called, the pats would have cruised to victory.  At that time, this board was very upset that any call was made believing that the refs should have "let players play" at that critical time of the game. 

    Well, that mentality played itself out in the last game but now the board wants something different.  Now the board wants the call.  It should be one or the other - not both.

    [/QUOTE]


    You really aren't too bright Colts troll. And your dishonesty is legend here.

    When the game is on the line you call blatant fouls that effect the outcome. You do not call chippy little wan-ker penalties that can be called on every play in the game. Got it?

    [/QUOTE]

    No I don't get it. 

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     



    You really aren't too bright Colts troll. And your dishonesty is legend here.

    When the game is on the line you call blatant fouls that effect the outcome. You do not call chippy little wan-ker penalties that can be called on every play in the game. Got it?

    [/QUOTE]

    No I don't get it. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ Huge understatement.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     



    You really aren't too bright Colts troll. And your dishonesty is legend here.

    When the game is on the line you call blatant fouls that effect the outcome. You do not call chippy little wan-ker penalties that can be called on every play in the game. Got it?

    [/QUOTE]

    No I don't get it. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ Huge understatement.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pat's fans are just the same as Colt's fans.  Just smarter, richer and better looking.  

    When asked about the call Irsay said: " you got a cigarette, I'm trying to quit"

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Is there anything left to this dead horse to dissect?

    For all intents and purposes, no matter which opinion corner you are in, this issue will not change the course of history of that game.  Further continuation on this board, in any fashion, is just going to go nowhere.

    Now, about those Broncos and how the Pats will blow that team up!!  GO PATS!!!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Gronkowski is explosive for a big guy.  An unblocked Gronk could, first, get his feet back where he could accelerate into the catch point, and second, he could compete with the eventual catcher of the pass who was right next to him, getting his shoulder into the smaller guy, getting a bit of the smaller guy's momentum.  Luke Kuechly, the run-blocker on this play, kept Gronk off of his stance by driving him backwards.

    Kudos to the Panthers for realizing that refs rarely if ever call anything against a home team if it means the whole ball game, so all fouls are legal.  They tried the same penalty theory on fourth down not much earlier in the fourth quarter, and on a third down earlier in the quarter.  They'll learn where the exact line is someday.

    Slight kudos to their system of working the refs' heartstrings by having their defensive end scream in pain all over the field as if he just lost an ACL, and then the big guy gets back in the game later because there's nothing actually wrong with him.  Sorry, no game misconduct penalty for Carolina's benefit on that play.  However, this utterly fake injury business is bad for the game of football, as pro soccer will learn someday.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Oh, one more thing.. having a discussion with this title does not carry too much weight when it is on a Patriots board.  Would be interesting to see such a discussion posted by a non-Patriot fan outside of NE and see the response.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    Leon's got a new screen name. 

     

    Bottom line, imo, is that was the second largest margin of loss for the Pats this season; Cincy beat them by 7.  To put it in perspective, Buffalo beat the Jets by a larger margin than Pats' losses combined; three losses by a combined total of 14.  No other NFL team can say that, and it shouldn't be overlooked.

    Two of those losses are regrettably associated with questionable calls.  This team will get over it faster than we will.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Have you ever thought maybe the Patriots should have played better and not allowed themselves to be in a position to beg the refs to bail them out once again?  Seems to me if you need the refs to call a penalty so you have a chance to win the game on the last play of the game, maybe you don't deserve to win the game.

    [/QUOTE]


    Leon, that's exactly how the Jets beat the Pats.

    Thanks for helping our point.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: An unbiased look at

    In response to PatsGetScrewedFinally's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gronkowski is explosive for a big guy.  An unblocked Gronk could, first, get his feet back where he could accelerate into the catch point, and second, he could compete with the eventual catcher of the pass who was right next to him, getting his shoulder into the smaller guy, getting a bit of the smaller guy's momentum.  Luke Kuechly, the run-blocker on this play, kept Gronk off of his stance by driving him backwards.

    Kudos to the Panthers for realizing that refs rarely if ever call anything against a home team if it means the whole ball game, so all fouls are legal.  They tried the same penalty theory on fourth down not much earlier in the fourth quarter, and on a third down earlier in the quarter.  They'll learn where the exact line is someday.

    Slight kudos to their system of working the refs' heartstrings by having their defensive end scream in pain all over the field as if he just lost an ACL, and then the big guy gets back in the game later because there's nothing actually wrong with him.  Sorry, no game misconduct penalty for Carolina's benefit on that play.  However, this utterly fake injury business is bad for the game of football, as pro soccer will learn someday.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's funny how the Pats fans have their blinders on when their team has mugged the opponents receivers for an entire game and got away with it.  Does the AFC Conf Champ game between the Patriots and Colts ring a bell?  The Patriots cheated themselves to a Superbowl that year and they seem to think its okay when the shoe is on the other foot.  Arrogant Hypocrites!

    [/QUOTE]


    WAAAAAAAA... the big bad patriots were to rough with my receivers... WAAAAAAAA

     

Share