Because ONE of us is honest

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Because ONE of us is honest

    I dedicate this board to Underdogg(g).

    I didn't agree with the pass interference call on (Carolina #56?) at all.  The defender had his left hand up as he ran down the field and was only touching Watson lightly with his right hand.  My only thought was that he was using said hand to hold Watson back from getting to the ball, but nonetheless the defender jumped to play the ball which hit Watson in the hands.

    One of us will admit when the refs give a favorable pass interference call to our team with which we didn't agree.  That person is not you.

    Also, if you think this in any way compensates for all of the calls that the Colts have received and for which they are NEVER called, you're still out of your mind.

    Bring back the good ol' days - let them play again.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LifeTimePat. Show LifeTimePat's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]I dedicate this board to Underdogg(g). I didn't agree with the pass interference call on (Carolina #56?) at all.  The defender had his left hand up as he ran down the field and was only touching Watson lightly with his right hand.  My only thought was that he was using said hand to hold Watson back from getting to the ball, but nonetheless the defender jumped to play the ball which hit Watson in the hands. One of us will admit when the refs give a favorable pass interference call to our team with which we didn't agree.  That person is not you. Also, if you think this in any way compensates for all of the calls that the Colts have received and for which they are NEVER called, you're still out of your mind. Bring back the good ol' days - let them play again.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I second that.... the PI was marginal at best....
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from K-max. Show K-max's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest


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

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]

    I saw that too.  It was not interference - not even marginal.  The calls the Colts have gotten since you guys have been whining about them are always at least technically interference, though you can always question whether those penalties should be called so tightly.  (I still haven't seen the Texan call, which I understand is the worst call of the bunch by general agreement on this board - not that that means much).
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME. Show NEGAME's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    The worst call yesterday was a PI against the Falcons. It cost the Falcons not only yardage but a clean interception. its was a great defense play but put the Saints in the red zone and of course they scored. Smith was livid, I'm sure we'll hear more about this. Something HAS to be done about this pi calls, but never will be while Polian is on the rules committee

    Edited  LOL written b4 my second cup of coffee
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    Thanks for the dedication. Didn't see the call.  Was it worse than the call the colts got against houston?

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

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest : I thought the Falcons played the Saints yesterday and the Cowboys played SD? BTW - it's "course".
    Posted by MYNJJets[/QUOTE]

    geez thanks and  I knew that i'll correct . 

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

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    Alot of people posted this in the game thread.  I didnt like it, and said I don't want to get ANY touchdowns the "Colts" way.  Underdoggggggg is in denial anyway, so whatever.  It was a bogus call, the the one after it  wasnt much better.  Makes defenses get nervous, and thats when Manning switches to attack mode.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from gridlocked. Show gridlocked's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest : I saw that too.  It was not interference - not even marginal.  The calls the Colts have gotten since you guys have been whining about them are always at least technically interference, though you can always question whether those penalties should be called so tightly.  (I still haven't seen the Texan call, which I understand is the worst call of the bunch by general agreement on this board - not that that means much).
    Posted by JulesWinfield[/QUOTE]


    PI should be reviewed automatically imo and that would take the preference factors out of it and stop the useless back and forth on this issue.

    Pats fans aren't in denial. When they see a bad call favor their team they man up and admit it.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest : I saw that too.  It was not interference - not even marginal.  The calls the Colts have gotten since you guys have been whining about them are always at least technically interference, though you can always question whether those penalties should be called so tightly.  (I still haven't seen the Texan call, which I understand is the worst call of the bunch by general agreement on this board - not that that means much).
    Posted by JulesWinfield[/QUOTE]

    I beg to differ - The call against Darius Butler was the same situation.   Butler had position in the path of the ball, was facing the QB when he jumped, and reached up to try to defend the ball.  He was flagged for interference even though Austin Collie jumped into him.  It was the NFL equivalent of Dwayne Wade circa 2006 (when he knew he was trapped and had no play, so he careened recklessly towards the basket and hoped for a call).

    Like I said to underdogg(g), one of us can be honest when our team benefits from phantom pass interference.  That person is not you.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]Thanks for the dedication. Didn't see the call.  Was it worse than the call the colts got against houston?
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    Didn't see the call against the Texans, and coincidentally I also can't find any replays of it online (hmmmmm)

    But if I ever thought the Patriots benefited from home town calls, it was this week against the Panthers.  There were a few calls where I wondered why the refs were being so "active," calls that, as a player, I think ruined a team's ability to play the game (and that are committed almost every play).

    Having said this, given the environment of the league and the way the game is called, I think it's about time that opponents started getting called for PI and defensive holding when trying to defend a Pro-Bowl QB, three Pro-Bowl linemen, a Pro-Bowl receiver, and a future Hall-of-Fame receiver.

    I just wish when they decided to start doing it that they got the calls right.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1020us. Show m1020us's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]I dedicate this board to Underdogg(g). I didn't agree with the pass interference call on (Carolina #56?) at all.  The defender had his left hand up as he ran down the field and was only touching Watson lightly with his right hand.  My only thought was that he was using said hand to hold Watson back from getting to the ball, but nonetheless the defender jumped to play the ball which hit Watson in the hands. One of us will admit when the refs give a favorable pass interference call to our team with which we didn't agree.  That person is not you. Also, if you think this in any way compensates for all of the calls that the Colts have received and for which they are NEVER called, you're still out of your mind. Bring back the good ol' days - let them play again.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]


    Like it or not, it was a legit PI call.  In the rule, it states that he must be looking at the ball or going for it....was he looking at the ball?  No.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest : I beg to differ - The call against Darius Butler was the same situation.   Butler had position in the path of the ball, was facing the QB when he jumped, and reached up to try to defend the ball.  He was flagged for interference even though Austin Collie jumped into him.  It was the NFL equivalent of Dwayne Wade circa 2006 (when he knew he was trapped and had no play, so he careened recklessly towards the basket and hoped for a call). Like I said to underdogg(g), one of us can be honest when our team benefits from phantom pass interference.  That person is not you.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    Nick, just fyi - jw has already demonstrated that he has absolutely no idea what the PI rule is. He even claims there is no such thing as incidental contact though it is written into the rule.

    At best, he parrots ud. Not the best of role models when it comes to integrity.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]Thanks for the dedication. Didn't see the call.  Was it worse than the call the colts got against houston?
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]
    Looked about the same, shoulders rubbing incidental hand contact.  Shouldn't have been called. 

    Of course the call is either right or it's wrong whether there is a bunch of contact or none.  Depends on who's playing the ball, and whether somebody is trying to hit the reciever to get them out of the play.  DB wasn't playing the ball but there wasn't enough contact to warrant PI.

    Did you see the Falcons get robbed yesterday against to Saints?  It was a clean INT and they called PI.  instead of a turnover they get 50 yards next to the endzone.  I would estimate about 10 games a year are decided on bad PI call, they need to make it reviewable before a SB is won on one.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    Calls go as calls go. Sometimes we gain a call we should not have, sometimes we get a call on us we should no have.

    Move on
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest : Nick, just fyi - jw has already demonstrated that he has absolutely no idea what the PI rule is. He even claims there is no such thing as incidental contact though it is written into the rule. At best, he parrots ud. Not the best of role models when it comes to integrity.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    Nice little snipe there Root.  Seems to me you are now trying to redefine well established words in our language.  Contrary to your belief and desire, integrity has nothing to do with agreeing with your point of view.    Lower than a snails belly, you are.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest : Looked about the same, shoulders rubbing incidental hand contact.  Shouldn't have been called.  Of course the call is either right or it's wrong whether there is a bunch of contact or none.  Depends on who's playing the ball, and whether somebody is trying to hit the reciever to get them out of the play.  DB wasn't playing the ball but there wasn't enough contact to warrant PI. Did you see the Falcons get robbed yesterday against to Saints?  It was a clean INT and they called PI.  instead of a turnover they get 50 yards next to the endzone.  I would estimate about 10 games a year are decided on bad PI call, they need to make it reviewable before a SB is won on one.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    Shen - lets be clear here, the contact in the Houston game that got the PI call may have been incidental, but the defender got a hold of Garcon's wrist and held it down impeding his progress, but with the hand fighting that goes on in the league, I was surprised it was called. 

    Did not see the falcons call.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfan24-7. Show Patsfan24-7's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]I dedicate this board to Underdogg(g). I didn't agree with the pass interference call on (Carolina #56?) at all.  The defender had his left hand up as he ran down the field and was only touching Watson lightly with his right hand.  My only thought was that he was using said hand to hold Watson back from getting to the ball, but nonetheless the defender jumped to play the ball which hit Watson in the hands. One of us will admit when the refs give a favorable pass interference call to our team with which we didn't agree.  That person is not you. Also, if you think this in any way compensates for all of the calls that the Colts have received and for which they are NEVER called, you're still out of your mind. Bring back the good ol' days - let them play again.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I agree.

    Let it be known- underdogg is a moran, and doesnt know much about football
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from timithye. Show timithye's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    Bad call against the panthers on that.  Fortunately, I am a Pat's fan homer so I was happy they made the call for the Pats.  Still should not have been called.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Because ONE of us is honest : I agree. Let it be known - underdogg is a moran, and doesnt know much about football
    Posted by Patsfan24-7[/QUOTE]
    So let it be written.  So let it be done.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    I like this thread. There's a lot of good information here. But I'm having a difficult time deciphering which one of you guys is rubber and which one is glue.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from kickwax. Show kickwax's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    I see the PI call wrong or questionable so often I think they have to go to a spot foul up to a maximum of 15 yards.  Games shouldn't change on one play especially on a penalty that is called so differently across the league or even team by team based on reputations not actual plays.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    Kickwax, the only issue with that is that now a 5'8" db will simply tackle Randy Moss once he knows he has been beaten.  Teams will use the penalty to their favor.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]Kickwax, the only issue with that is that now a 5'8" db will simply tackle Randy Moss once he knows he has been beaten.  Teams will use the penalty to their favor.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    That is a problem and I'm not a big fan of this rule in college for those reasons. There is no good answer unless they want to make a PI call reviewable too. I thought about doing a regular 15 yd PI call and then a Flagrant which would be a spot foul but then your giving the refs one more thing to think about and they skrew things up as much as our Federal government already.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Because ONE of us is honest

    In Response to Re: Because ONE of us is honest:
    [QUOTE]Kickwax, the only issue with that is that now a 5'8" db will simply tackle Randy Moss once he knows he has been beaten.  Teams will use the penalty to their favor.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    They already tackle Moss, like the Colts CB did so Bethea could intercept the ball in the end zone.

    The main problem is that they never call illegal contact or defensive holding against people who cover Welker or Moss despite the fact that 9/10 CBs in the league would be overmatched against either of them.  They also never call interference when either go up for the ball, even if the defender makes contact before the ball gets there.

    Meanwhile, the Patriots are called left and right for illegal contact and pass interference (despite not making any more contact with receivers than opponents do with Moss and Welker).

    I'd rather not see it called at all.  At least then you know what you're going to get.  Right now, IT'S WAY TOO MUCH OF A JUDGMENT CALL.

    And I agree with the 15 yard piece - if they keep tackling Moss, then the Pats would still benefit, assuming they ever call it against corners and safeties who cover Moss and Welker (who do indeed hold them and chuck them well over 5 yards downfield and do frequently make contact with them before the ball arrives when they're not facing the ball or making a play on the ball).
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share