Was Eli in the grasp? - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

***Horace's Ivories*** · 02-04-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pats726

And then there was the Woods recovery of a fumble?? Did he NOT have that in possession with his knees down touching?? I suppose those were called correctly? ,,)

That non-fumble recovery was horrific that Woods lost the ball. However, I was wondering if that was a reviewable play since you could see he had control at one point.

fourthandmiles · 02-05-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATSNUTme

After seeing the play from different angle now, it could have been either way. From one angle he was clearly in the grasp. From another angle he was still moving and wasn't stopped.

I can actually see where they might have called this. I was watching the clip to see if there was a not holding call because of the offical not seeing it. (It was right in front of him imo) From the angle the official had Eli could have looked like he was in the grasp. Not the he was but I can see where the offical might have thought that he was.

Marko · 02-05-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pats726

No?? I wonder if you were watching the same game...I suppose that when Toomer hits Hobbs in the face CLEARLY pushes him and then makes a catch that is NOT interference?? And did you NOT see a forearm to Brady on his hemet that was not called? And then there was the Woods recovery of a fumble?? Did he NOT have that in possession with his knees down touching?? I suppose those were called correctly? And that is just without reviewing the game....And NO that is not why the Patriots lost...but.. PLEASE don't make statements like that which are clearly TOTALLY untrue...YES..It could have been called better....Most games CAN..
They did let them play a lot more..but that is one of the problems...there are some games that are totally physical when MANY MANY things not called in one game...would have been flagged in another. There was mention of Holding called on that one play..there was Holding all game..and I wish the Patriots had done what the Giants did with Eli...I think they were afraid to BE physical...as there were no Holding calls I remember on passing plays..That is very difficult for players.. Overall the officials were quite good..I just think they let a lot go... CoachB should have challenged the fumble call..that I think might have made a difference..but..I have 'friends'... that were saying it was fixed..and such..and while I do believe the NFL or elements in it can cause officials to do things in a team's favor...THAT was not the case last night.. (It was not like the Colts game of Week 10 or of the SB two years ago,,)

You're right, but there is a very reactionary spirit over certain issues on this board in favor of being the PC fan or ac"classy" fan (which is kind of an oxymoron). Watson's holding penalty was complete BS (the guy went down doesn't mean it's holding) which stalled and important drive That being said the game was lost in the trenches, the Defense played very well but the OL got creamed. If the Ol held the ball at all the D might have given up even fewer points, It's seems apparent that in the SB the fatigue factor is much greater, this accounts for the easy drive the Pats had at the end of the game, it's just too bad there was too much time left because I'm sure our defense was gassed as well.

jscout · 02-05-2008, 12:07 PM

The bottomline is that if there was anything, it was not called. No call = no foul. Was he in the grasp? It doesn't matter. The clock says 00 and there's a parade in NYC today. Done. Let's get over it and move on to next season.

sdaniels7114 · 02-05-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horace's Ivories

That non-fumble recovery was horrific that Woods lost the ball. However, I was wondering if that was a reviewable play since you could see he had control at one point.

Woods clearly had it IMO, the moment any Giant touched him at all the play should have been dead. But you see that scenario happen all the time. There will be 10 guys in a pig pile and an 11th will jump on top, dig down through and somehow come away with the ball. Now you know for a fact he didn't recover it; but still they award possession based on him having acquired it.

***DCSkinsFan*** · 02-05-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roman_maroney

No, unfortunately he wasn't. Our team got punched in the mouth. That game couldn't have been called any better than it was. As a Pats fan for nearly 30 years, I don't know what I am more embarrassed by, the lack of intensity and focus by the organization and team this week, or the fans making excuses for it. I know I'm new to this forum, but it is astounding. The reason there are so many trolls is that we ourselves perpetuate the stereotype of the "Boston sports fan" with stuff like this.

QFT Roman....

Fanfrom1960 · 02-05-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblesz

Seymour was held the ENTIRE game...why would they start calling it then?

Because the Pats were called for holding twice earlier (once on a kickoff)? I guess those were the token holding calls for the entire game. Those two calls cost the Pats about 45 yards, the one from the LOS negating a 15 yard gain by K. Faulk, and the one on the kickoff making the Pats start on the 22 yard line rather than the 32. On the replay on one of them, I yelled out ticky tack call. I also can't believe the Pats were the only team holding all game.

Fanfrom1960 · 02-05-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

Woods clearly had it IMO, the moment any Giant touched him at all the play should have been dead. But you see that scenario happen all the time. There will be 10 guys in a pig pile and an 11th will jump on top, dig down through and somehow come away with the ball. Now you know for a fact he didn't recover it; but still they award possession based on him having acquired it.

There was a similar play in SB 39. Brady fell on a loose ball at the Eagles 15 or so. A couple of Eagles mauled him, came up with the ball and the Eagles were awarded the fumble. Don't ask me why it isn't down by contact, like a running back, when Woods is flat on the ground with the ball under him. Maybe he didn't have control of it? Anyway, how does he let a guy 60 pounds lighter get the ball away from him when it's under him and he has both hands and arms free to hold on?

Pats726 · 02-05-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horace's Ivories

That non-fumble recovery was horrific that Woods lost the ball. However, I was wondering if that was a reviewable play since you could see he had control at one point.

I think it was reviewed they would have HAD to have given the ball to the Pats..He had the ball..it was in his possession seen..and his knees were down...case closed. Usually..when there is a fumble..there is a lot of grabbing etc etc..but on this..the replay showed it clearly...Key bad call..and Not at all smart not throwing the beanbag...
As far as Holding calls..they let the teams play more or less..TRUE a ticky tacky one on Watson while Eli's linemen were holding a lot...replay?? But again..the refs let them play..I just do not think the Pats O-line was ready for it all..that physical.

PatsBowlorBust · 02-05-2008, 02:00 PM

Eli should have been picked several times that guy, especially in the 4th at the end, and he should have been sacked several times as well!!!