everlong

Yes after the whistle it was correct. The whistle was the porking.

__________________
"When Peyton Manning was a kid he used to go to bed at night and dream about throwing the winning touchdown for the Saints in the Superbowl. And on Sunday he did."

There's only two conclusions for Patriots fans on rookies. They are either a bust or being fitted for their bust in Canton.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

LoveDemPats

Nice man! Thanks. I kinda didn't know what was wrong with the play.

SoCalPatsfan90

The whistle blowing stopped people playing is my point. I doubt that he would have made it all the way to the SD 6 if they were allowed to play that out. Of the two, the colts were the ones that lost more on that play, but not as much as I think people are giving them.

psychoPat

Isn't one of the major sources of the Colts' greatness
their strategy to draw penalties?
... and insist on a Point Of Emphasis
when the refs aren't flagging what they feel entitled to?

ctpatsfan77

A rule change that we'll never see, but that would solve #%@# like this--once the quarterback goes under center for fourth down, a team is committed to trying to convert rather than punt/kick--even if the play results in a penalty, or that team uses a timeout. [I would allow the offense to change its mind, so to speak, if the D calls a timeout.]

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TomBrady'sGoat

After the game Dungy was saying that they've run that "play" where the TE jumps up faking the snap before and it has never been called. Is this true? I've never seen the Colts do that before, but I'm not a Colt fan and only see so many games.

I ask because I hate random enforcement of rules. Either call the penalty all of the time or don't call it.

It's like the Colts defenders yelling "hike" or whatever the hell they do. Even though it is against the rules the league is currently allowing this, and they shouldn't be randomly called for it at a critical point in a game.

So basically, while I don't condone breaking the rules I think that the expectation of consistency is important. I also believe that how the rules are commonly enforced is more important than how the rulebook is written.

What's funny is that this same thinking defends the 2003 Patriots, who manhandled Colts WRs because defensive holding penalties were consistently not being called across the NFL. Of course I don't expect any Colts fan to appreciate that.

PatsFaninAZ

It's not really as simple as this. Basically a rule about "simulating the start of a play" is one about intent. An official can never really be sure what the team's intent was.

So, if a man on the line who is permitted to move before a play does so, and the official is forced to decide whether it was a legitimate movement or a deliberate attempt to simulate the start of the play, I can understand if the typical approach of the official is to let it go because he can't be certain and the man can legally move.

Now, if the defender is actually tricked and comes across the line and makes contact, then the official has a decision to make. And, in fact, pretty much every time I've seen the "simulating" penalty called on the offense that's been the exact scenario. Once the defender comes across the line and touches the offensive player, or is unabated to the QB, the official has to stop the game and make the tough call. Otherwise, though, it's largely no-harm-no-foul.

Last night, there was no contact or unabated to the QB. There was, however, considerable evidence that the play was deliberate given the situation. The ref understands football. The colts were down by 2 with under 2 minutes left on the road, looking at a chip shot field goal. There is no way they were actually going to run a play, and everyone knows it. (Everyone except Al Michaels for some reason.) The ENTIRE REASON the colts were at the line there was to try to draw a penalty, and the ref knows it.

So, I don't think it's a case of "situational" officiating, as you suggest. I think it's just a case of a ref using the situation as evidence on a call that turns on intent.

There are a few of these calls in sports where officials must decide intent. By and large, most sports have eliminated them with good success. A good example is "intentional" grounding, which no longer actually requires the official to figure out intent but now has been reduced to some more black and white rules. Another good example comes from hockey -- the delay of game penalty where a defender flicks the puck out of play to avoid trouble. It used to be that refs would have to figure out intent by the game situation. Now, if the puck goes out of play from the defensive end and doesn't touch glass, it's a penalty.

There are a few intent-based rules left in football, and this is one of them. I have no problem with the refs assuming that an otherwise legal play is legal unless the situation or other evidence suggests otherwise.

tuckeverlasting

what i don't understand is everytime the refs call a penalty on either team they have to confer with dungy. i also thought if a coach goes on the field, it's a penalty, yet i always see dungy in the middle of the field and no penalty.

__________________
john clayton is super chicken and doug gottlieb is a thief .

alamo

It's hypocritical of us as Patriots fans to scorn another team for pushing what they do to the edge of the rulebook, Belichick does it more (and better) than anyone.

"Abruptly" is a complete judgement call, and the Colts last night just executed it poorly, leading to a penalty. I think the WR going into motion at the same time was what tipped the play into a penalty in the official's mind, if the motion was earlier then the guys on the line could have gotten away with it and possibly drawn the penalty they wanted. If I recall, the flag was thrown by the official on the other side, it must have looked to him like half the line jumped.

Metaphors

I'm not saying they are "evil" for trying it...I'm saying they are stupid.

They executed it to look like the TE was coming out of his stance to pass protect. Shifts generally involve multiple players moving (one steps back off the line, another replaces him to avoid an illegal procedure).

"Abrupt", "unneccessary", etc. are all judgement calls. In this case, the judgement wasn't all that hard. You don't attempt that play unless you are willing to live with the penalty that could result. Doesn't sound like Dungy was willing (and shouldn't have been willing given the field conditions) given that he called a timeout to argue.

"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

Idiot.