Investigation

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Q.  When is a bear hug, by a linebacker, on a receiver more than 5 yards downfield not defensive holding?

    A.  It depends.  Who are we talking about?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well done.

    It probably should have been called Holding.   The problem is they seemed to be locked into deciding whether or not it was or wasn't PI.   The Holding is beyond debate for rational people.  But once they settled on it not being PI they walked off the field.

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Q.  When is a bear hug, by a linebacker, on a receiver more than 5 yards downfield not defensive holding?

    A.  It depends.  Who are we talking about?

    [/QUOTE]

    Per the article I cited earlier from Boston based Football Outsiders - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2013/clutch-encounters-week-11 - defensive holding cannot be the call when the ball is in the air.  Thus, it is either PI or it is not PI, because the refs deemed the ball uncatchable, it is not PI. 

    The site went on to provide evidence of a Gronkowski TD where he pushed off but was not called for it.  As they noted, you cannot have it both ways. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This doesn't say a word about the ball having to be in the air troll.

     

    http://football.about.com/cs/football101/g/gl_defensivehol.htm

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The contact seemed to rise to the point of interference or illegal contact a split second before the ball was intercepted four or five yards in front of the receivers.  At that point, there was no way Gronk could have come back and take the ball away from the interceptor without going through him.  Seriously, with his momentum going towards the back of the end-zone, I don't see how he could even have touched the defender.  True, we see plays like these get called all the time, but I don't see how the ball could have been catchable...

    [/QUOTE]

    I can understand seeing it that way at the time the ball came into the end zone.  However, from what I saw on the replays, Gronk was angling in on his route, and his path would have intersected the path of the ball, except the defender got in front of him and quite literally pushed him off his route. Just my opinion, but I think there was a penalty there.

    I also think the Panthers did what they had to for the win, and the Pats should not have been in a position where one play determined the outcome.

    [/QUOTE]


    with due respect it did not appear that Gronkowski's route adjusted significantly.  the ball was thrown well short of him.  the defender went down to get the ball.  In order Gronkowski to have made that play unimpeded.  He would have had to have stopped his momentum and literally dove back to the ball before it hit the ground.  I am not saying that it couldn't have happened but it seems unlikely for a guy who weighs 270# and has momentum going in the opposite direction. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Classic UD..   replace Gronk with a Colt receiver and Manning passing the ball and you'd feel the same way, huh?  So easy when it is not YOUR team.  Besides, Colts always got these calls back in the day against every team they played, it seemed.

    [/QUOTE]
    never against the pats.  The way Gronkowski was played last night on that play is the way the pats always played the colts and the refs whistles and flags were buried deeply in their pockets. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying again I see.

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well folks the pleasure once again has been all yours! Enjoy each others miserable company today and right before you fall asleep tonight let this thought pass through your head.

     The Broncos are Coming !! The Broncos are Coming!! LOL

    Y'all have a nice night...ya'hear!

    [/QUOTE]


    Let this pass through your head troll loser:

     

     

     

    LMAO@U

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Q.  When is a bear hug, by a linebacker, on a receiver more than 5 yards downfield not defensive holding?

    A.  It depends.  Who are we talking about?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well done.

    It probably should have been called Holding.   The problem is they seemed to be locked into deciding whether or not it was or wasn't PI.   The Holding is beyond debate for rational people.  But once they settled on it not being PI they walked off the field.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Gruden made the point last night.  We all know it was pass interference (including Gruden) but it was also illegal contact.   

    People who debate this might as well turn in their man card.  They don't know a thing about football.

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

    Re: Investigation

    one of the ladies on ESPN just brought up the Pats stonewalling T Gonzalez and says its the same thing.  Sorry, not letting the guy off the line of scrimmage is not the same thing.  

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You always seem to blame the refs when your team gets beat.  This call was close, but seemed correct to me - uncatchable ball.  The call at the end of the Jet game was clearly correct.  Maybe there's some kind of psychological reason (extreme denial?) that causes sports fans to do this, but there are a handful of very close calls in most games, and y'all are certain they all go against the Patriots.  Meanwhile, the Panthers outplayed your team, which should be what you're talking about...

    [/QUOTE]


    And if this happened to your team, whoever it is, you would not be moaning and groaning? Of course you would.

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Q.  When is a bear hug, by a linebacker, on a receiver more than 5 yards downfield not defensive holding?

    A.  It depends.  Who are we talking about?

    [/QUOTE]

    Per the article I cited earlier from Boston based Football Outsiders - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2013/clutch-encounters-week-11 - defensive holding cannot be the call when the ball is in the air.  Thus, it is either PI or it is not PI, because the refs deemed the ball uncatchable, it is not PI. 

    The site went on to provide evidence of a Gronkowski TD where he pushed off but was not called for it.  As they noted, you cannot have it both ways. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This doesn't say a word about the ball having to be in the air troll.

     

    http://football.about.com/cs/football101/g/gl_defensivehol.htm

    [/QUOTE]

    what's your point, spinmeister?  Did you read the article I linked?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonIrishGuy. Show BostonIrishGuy's posts

    Re: Investigation


    I'ms sorry, for those TROLLS who bring up Spygate and the TUck rule, you are IDIOTS. The Pats were NEVER caught for any type of cheating, Spygate is WAYYY OVERBLOWN out of proportion. But you TROLLS are too stupid to realize that. Furthermore the TUCK RULE was just that.....A RULE...and was PROPERLY ENFORCED when the Pats beat the Raiders in the playoffs that year. There was ZERO contreversy about that, it was a PROPERLY ENFORCED RULE. COMPLETELY different from last night's BS call.

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to BostonIrishGuy's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I'ms sorry, for those TROLLS who bring up Spygate and the TUck rule, you are IDIOTS. The Pats were NEVER caught for any type of cheating, Spygate is WAYYY OVERBLOWN out of proportion. But you TROLLS are too stupid to realize that. Furthermore the TUCK RULE was just that.....A RULE...and was PROPERLY ENFORCED when the Pats beat the Raiders in the playoffs that year. There was ZERO contreversy about that, it was a PROPERLY ENFORCED RULE. COMPLETELY different from last night's BS call.

    [/QUOTE]

    Correctomundo!  I laugh at people who bring up spygate.  They only demonstrate that they don't know anything about football.  

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

    Re: Investigation


    Bad call at the end or not, the Pats did it to themselves last night. Talib's two penalties in the first half led to 10 points. (Not saying that they would have kept Carolina off the scoreboard anyway, but the dumb penalties definitely didn't help things out. Smith baited him, and he swallowed hook, line, and stinker.) Then there was that Ridley fumble,a dn the inability to contain Nwton on several 3rd and long situations. Sorry, but the refs had absolutely NOTHING to do with those plays.

    My concern on officiating is that, quite often, we expect way too much (can you say: PERFECTION?) from game officials. As a result, and I can say this as I'm a game official, to cover myself (baseball umpire) I sometimes find myself LOOKING to make a call, by quantifying what I just saw. I have to use the "smell". If I wanted to, I could over-officiate and make calls on every play that would have most folks scratching their heads. Example: Baseball is (as legend has it) a "non-contact" sport. But, there is, quite often, contact. Do I call obstruction or interference on every instance of contact? (Cripes! 85% of all fans can't ID the difference between obstruction and interference!!) Sometimes you just need to put teh whistle away.

    A point can be made that Gronk was underthrown. OK, but if the ref divined that Gronk was never going to be able to catch the ball with the LB groping him worse than any back seat or soft prn flick I ever saw, then he must surely be able to reasonably understand the part of teh rules that says a defender can't make contct with the receiver beyond 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. (None of the ball isn't in the air stuff, as that's a new one on me!)

    Refs will ALWAYS find somethuing in the rules to get themselves ut of trouble, or find a way to excuse a bad call. The NFL will ALWAYS cover for them as long as necessary.

    There is absolutely no aurance that they would have scored from the 1 yard line on a free play (recall the missed 3rd and 1?), IF the call went their way. If they got the call and failed to score, where would the post game angst be directed to? The dumb penalties? The fumble? The inability to corral Newton? The missed 3rd and 1? 

    Bottom line is this: The Pats played themselves into this situation, having a game, or a final chance to win it, placed in a ref's hands and not their own.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Investigation

    We got F**ked hard and I'm still pisssed

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Bad call at the end or not, the Pats did it to themselves last night. Talib's two penalties in the first half led to 10 points. (Not saying that they would have kept Carolina off the scoreboard anyway, but the dumb penalties definitely didn't help things out. Smith baited him, and he swallowed hook, line, and stinker.) Then there was that Ridley fumble,a dn the inability to contain Nwton on several 3rd and long situations. Sorry, but the refs had absolutely NOTHING to do with those plays.

    My concern on officiating is that, quite often, we expect way too much (can you say: PERFECTION?) from game officials. As a result, and I can say this as I'm a game official, to cover myself (baseball umpire) I sometimes find myself LOOKING to make a call, by quantifying what I just saw. I have to use the "smell". If I wanted to, I could over-officiate and make calls on every play that would have most folks scratching their heads. Example: Baseball is (as legend has it) a "non-contact" sport. But, there is, quite often, contact. Do I call obstruction or interference on every instance of contact? (Cripes! 85% of all fans can't ID the difference between obstruction and interference!!) Sometimes you just need to put teh whistle away.

    A point can be made that Gronk was underthrown. OK, but if the ref divined that Gronk was never going to be able to catch the ball with the LB groping him worse than any back seat or soft prn flick I ever saw, then he must surely be able to reasonably understand the part of teh rules that says a defender can't make contct with the receiver beyond 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. (None of the ball isn't in the air stuff, as that's a new one on me!)

    Refs will ALWAYS find somethuing in the rules to get themselves ut of trouble, or find a way to excuse a bad call. The NFL will ALWAYS cover for them as long as necessary.

    There is absolutely no aurance that they would have scored from the 1 yard line on a free play (recall the missed 3rd and 1?), IF the call went their way. If they got the call and failed to score, where would the post game angst be directed to? The dumb penalties? The fumble? The inability to corral Newton? The missed 3rd and 1? 

    Bottom line is this: The Pats played themselves into this situation, having a game, or a final chance to win it, placed in a ref's hands and not their own.

    [/QUOTE]


    1.  If players were honest, officials would not even exist. They'd call things themselves. In theory, referees/umpires/etc. are not really part of the game. Of course players calling their own games is not possible due to the fact that players want to win and cannot be objective. Referees, umpires are a band aid solution to overcome bias and on 50-50 plays. If they cannot be relied upon to call things correctly on highly critical plays then what is the point of having them?

    2.  You just reinforced my opinion that officials should be eliminated from sports. Not possible now, but professional sports should aspire for it. For starters in the MLB, human umpires should be taken out of call strikes and balls.

    3.  You don't want people to expect perfection from officials, yet you expect a team to play perfectly to deserve winning a game. BS. The Pats did not play a clean game but in aggreagte played well enough to deserve one more chance to win it, else there would be no controversy.  Saying they don't is BS.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Investigation


    It's part of the liberal agenda to take away our soveriegnty to the corporatists and globalists

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's part of the liberal agenda to take away our soveriegnty to the corporatists and globalists

    [/QUOTE]


    It's part of all their agendas.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's part of the liberal agenda to take away our soveriegnty to the corporatists and globalists

    [/QUOTE]


    It's part of all their agendas.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed on this one. Totally. Its embarrasing that we are at this point.  The system is never, ever, ever wrong. YOU are wrong citizen!!

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We got F**ked hard and I'm still pisssed

    [/QUOTE]


    +1

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Graet defensive play by the Panthers on a horribly underthrown ball by Brady in the endzone.

    Wha's all the hub bub about?

    My favorite stat of the game-Brady gets the credit for throwing an INT that ended the game.I love it.What I didn't like was the way he addressed the refs after the game.

    I'm hoping a huge fine or a game or two suspension. Aren't his on and off the field hissy fits wearing anybody else out beside me?

    [/QUOTE]


    I would expect you to be more concerned about the Jets own inept QB situation - and, since they didn't suspend Rex Ryan for his foot fetish video, I am guessing Tom Brady escapes suspension for tell the ref the truth, albeit impolitely

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to agill1970's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    However, you'd still have a hard time saying that Gronk would have been able to get to that pass before the interceptor.  The interceptor made his move before the initiation of contact on Gronk, and Gronk couldn't have reversed field in time ot beat him to the ball.  It's closer than I thought, but I still don't see how it would be possible for Gronk to get there or make the catch without taking the defender out...

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't quite get why everyone seems to think this argument is in anyway relevant???  From what this argument is implying, it is ok to wrap up a receiver and then forcefully move him off of his route, and so long as the ball doesn't quite make it within 2 yards of the inteded receiver, it's fine.  Is that honestly what I'm hearing here?  

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not what you're hearing from here.  My point is that a ball that is intercepted well ahead of the receiver is, by definition, uncatchable.  Think of a 20-yard crossing route that is intercepted ten yards ahead of the receiver - it wouldn't matter if the receiver was assaulted on a perfectly-thrown pass, because it wouldn't have prevented the interception and the ball would never have reached the receiver.  Therefore, the uncatchable exemption applies. 

    Obviously, the question here is whether the interception was inevitable.  (Obviously not as clear-cut as in my example.)  There's no language in the regulation (to my knowledge) about this, I'm just trying to pinpoint at what point in time the uncatchable exemption would apply in this situation...

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That ball was uncatchable! There I said it!!

    [/QUOTE]

    We ALL know you can't catch it.  Your point?

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That ball was uncatchable! There I said it!!

    [/QUOTE]

    We ALL know you can't catch it.  Your point?

    [/QUOTE]

    You're addicted to this subject:)

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

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Graet defensive play by the Panthers on a horribly underthrown ball by Brady in the endzone.

    Wha's all the hub bub about?

    My favorite stat of the game-Brady gets the credit for throwing an INT that ended the game.I love it.What I didn't like was the way he addressed the refs after the game.

    I'm hoping a huge fine or a game or two suspension. Aren't his on and off the field hissy fits wearing anybody else out beside me?

    [/QUOTE]

    My favorite stat of the weekend : Bills 37 Jets14...closely followed by Geno smith 8-23 with 4 turnovers... LOL

     

Share