That was pass interference

[Jackson 2]

It's been almost a week and that was still not pass interference!

Those whose opinions count, namely the refs, say it was.

 

[Uncle Meat]

It's been almost a week and that was still not pass interference!

As the resident intransigent, persistent, and moronically argumentative troll on this board, I'd feel remiss not to say that it's only been THREE days since the incident in question, which is hardly almost a week. It hasn't even been HALF a week.

How'd you guys like THAT?

Typical, huh?

At least I'm right again.

 

[brdmaverick]

Here is he bottom line...

By definition (regardless of how slight) that was pass interference but the reality is that if we are being unbiased we as NFL fans should NOT want flags thrown in those scenarios.

We don't want flags being thrown on that play even in the first quarter nevermind a potential game winning drive.

The quality of the overall product goes down if that gets flagged consistently.

 

[Jackson 2]

Here is he bottom line...

By definition (regardless of how slight) that was pass interference but the reality is that if we are being unbiased we as NFL fans should NOT want flags thrown in those scenarios.

We don't want flags being thrown on that play even in the first quarter nevermind a potential game winning drive.

The quality of the overall product goes down if that gets flagged consistently.

I was ecstatic when it was called and I'm ecstatic now that it was called. If the exact same call goes against us Sunday, I'll be BS. That's just the way it works. All of this over-the-top moralizing over that call after we were porked out of two wins earlier this' season is nauseating. News bulletin: the quality of the overall product has sucked this' season principally due to bad calls. I'm glad we got one for a change.

 

[Tunescribe]

It was pass interference -- THREE TIMES on the same play. Boyce was interfered with at about the 8-yard line and again twice in the end zone: he was running away from the defender who touched him on the torso reaching around with both hands, then again on his left shoulder. It was subtle, not blatant, but certainly worth being flagged.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

There is no break in logic. I'm talking about two different things...the NFL's policy and his new job. That's two separate things that I was trying to differentiate between.

LOL, he's constantly trying to stir the pot and feed controversy in his new job, though? That's pretty funny. Can't trust a guy like that for sure. Hope that works for you, but I don't buy it.

The calls he reports on are usually ALREADY controversial, and that's why they ask his opinion in the first place. People are going to be talking about it no matter WHAT his take is. I fail to see how calling this pass interference is LESS provocative than saying it wasn't pass interference. The EXACT same people are going to tune in either way, and I'd like you to explain to me why they wouldn't. If anything, they may tune in LESS if was ever blatantly wrong often enough...

Most people agree that Gronk was interfered with in the Carolina game. Pereira agreed without "being provocative."

This product basically sells itself regardless of content. The interest is already there and doesn't need to be forced, especially by dishonesty. Sure, let's consult the lying expert...how long would such a gig last?

Look at this thread...it's 43 pages long. Why? Because we are talking about a "questionable call." People talk about them no matter what. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Pereira isn't on the level...unless you don't like what he says and want to discredit him.

Disagree with him if you want, but let's not be silly.

You have no clue what the policy at his old job was nor the new one. Any differentiating you're doing between the two is not based on fact.

Fox is competing with the other media outlets for their share of the pie, the health of the NFL product means they have more reason not less to pull out every trick to draw attention to themselves. Trotting out an ex official to tell the majority that they're right seems to do a pretty good job of that.

He's a professional mouth piece doing his job, you probably think cute waitresses really find you funny and charming too.

 

[Pat Riot]

Re: Re: That was pass interference

There is no break in logic.

Look at this thread...it's 43 pages long. Why?

Why? Because you're posting in it.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Here is he bottom line...

By definition (regardless of how slight) that was pass interference but the reality is that if we are being unbiased we as NFL fans should NOT want flags thrown in those scenarios.

We don't want flags being thrown on that play even in the first quarter nevermind a potential game winning drive.

The quality of the overall product goes down if that gets flagged consistently.

Memo to Refs: Pats fans on a certain message forum desire that all close calls go AGAINST US from now on. Please make it so. Otherwise the Patsfans.com forum will suffer a total MELTDOWN if another call goes our way!

I suggest that you also email and physically mail Goodell's office immediately so we can make sure that NO FURTHER calls go our way! That would simply be OUTRAGEOUS and we just won't STAND FOR IT!!!



Seriously, the angst over this borderline call by some of these so called Pats fans just boggles my mind. It's as if you've bought into the national media brainwashing that the Pats don't deserve any calls to go their way AND in fact must feel GUILTY if we get one in our favor. I don't get it. It's like ESPN-brainwashing or something.

*facepalm* :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

As the resident intransigent, persistent, and moronically argumentative troll on this board, I'd feel remiss not to say that it's only been THREE days since the incident in question, which is hardly almost a week. It hasn't even been HALF a week.

At least you admit you're trolling. If you're not getting enough attention, maybe it's time to spring for that expensive sports car?

 

[Uncle Meat]

You have no clue what the policy at his old job was nor the new one. Any differentiating you're doing between the two is not based on fact.

Fox is competing with the other media outlets for their share of the pie, the health of the NFL product means they have more reason not less to pull out every trick to draw attention to themselves. Trotting out an ex official to tell the majority that they're right seems to do a pretty good job of that.

He's a professional mouth piece doing his job, you probably think cute waitresses really find you funny and charming too.

Ridiculous. No doubt that having Pereira is an innovative gimmick to gather interest, but how do you equate THAT with him being dishonest in any way? Doesn't make a lick of sense. I already explained the particulars to you. People are just interested in what his take is. He doesn't have to lie to gain that interest. If you think he's lying I can't help you, and that's a ridiculous thing to assume. There is simply no reason for him to lie, as I've already explained.

Then again, if I respond to this post in depth, I'm the bad guy trolling, right? YOU replied to ME, but of course YOU aren't trolling. I respond back, and I AM...m'kay. That makes a lot of sense too. You gonna be a real message board hero and bring down the troll? Or are we having a real discussion here?

How about I just claim that you may have been lying all along, and therefore nothing you say can ever be trusted? That is definitely the ticket. How convenient would THAT be? Kinda like being labeled a troll, right? You are a troll and therefore wrong. What a steaming pile of rancid horse**** and a complete copout. 'Cuz normally you can climb inside another person's brain and know their intentions just like Spock.

Yep, everyone's lying if you can't prove otherwise, especially when it suits your fancy. Great job. Can't argue with THAT, can you?

Thank you and good night.

At least you admit you're trolling.

No.

Context, son...context. You missed it.

Why? Because you're posting in it.

Yeah, I'm pretty popular. No doubt about it.

 

[jcdavey]

it's one of those plays that when it benefits your own team, you say the refs did good

if it doesn't benefit your team you say the refs did bad


that's life as an nfl fan

 

[supafly]

It was pass interference -- THREE TIMES on the same play. Boyce was interfered with at about the 8-yard line and again twice in the end zone: he was running away from the defender who touched him on the torso reaching around with both hands, then again on his left shoulder. It was subtle, not blatant, but certainly worth being flagged.

I tend to agree with you here, Tune. I also agree with those who say that we wouldn't want to be on the other end of this call, but the truth of the matter is that we HAVE been on the other end of this kind of call for DPI.

The McCourty penalty in the BAL game (reg season) from last year during the late 4th quarter comes to mind, although I'm sure there are other examples.

You don't possibly know where there's a .gif of this play from last week anywhere around, do you? I'd like to see a few solid looks at it again.

 

[Tunescribe]

I tend to agree with you here, Tune. I also agree with those who say that we wouldn't want to be on the other end of this call, but the truth of the matter is that we HAVE been on the other end of this kind of call for DPI.

The McCourty penalty in the BAL game (reg season) from last year during the late 4th quarter comes to mind, although I'm sure there are other examples.

You don't possibly know where there's a .gif of this play from last week anywhere around, do you? I'd like to see a few solid looks at it again.

I wouldn't know where to find a .gif, but it was in the game highlights at NFL.com.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Ridiculous. No doubt that having Pereira is an innovative gimmick to gather interest, but how do you equate THAT with him being dishonest in any way? Doesn't make a lick of sense. I already explained the particulars to you. People are just interested in what his take is. He doesn't have to lie to gain that interest. If you think he's lying I can't help you, and that's a ridiculous thing to assume. There is simply no reason for him to lie, as I've already explained.

Then again, if I respond to this post in depth, I'm the bad guy trolling, right? YOU replied to ME, but of course YOU aren't trolling. I respond back, and I AM...m'kay. That makes a lot of sense too. You gonna be a real message board hero and bring down the troll? Or are we having a real discussion here?

How about I just claim that you may have been lying all along, and therefore nothing you say can ever be trusted? That is definitely the ticket. How convenient would THAT be? Kinda like being labeled a troll, right? You are a troll and therefore wrong. What a steaming pile of rancid horse**** and a complete copout. 'Cuz normally you can climb inside another person's brain and know their intentions just like Spock.

Yep, everyone's lying if you can't prove otherwise, especially when it suits your fancy. Great job. Can't argue with THAT, can you?

Thank you and good night.

You've actually agreed with all the reasoning that I've used to make the claim that Mike's current employment casts doubt on the validity of anything he says. Can you please point out at what point you not only disagree with my reasoning, but think it becomes 'silly' and 'ridiculous'?

I never said he was definitely being dishonest or lying. What I said is he's a professional, who has skewed facts at the behest of his employer before, he currently works for a media outlet, that employment is motivation to draw attention to his public opinions, and as such those opinions should be viewed with little to no credibility. You've done nothing to poke holes in that line of reasoning. You've actually agreed with pretty much everything but the conclusion.

You've explained that you think he has no reason to lie, but I've disagreed with each reason behind that. Reason 1: He no longer works for the NFL; he works for Fox. Reason 2: the NFL sells itself; Fox is but one media outlet covering the NFL and must fight for media share. Reason 3 (current): People are just interested in what his take is. This last one is confusing, you've already stated that that interest is contingent on certain facts; in your case not lying. I however think the interest is based on appeasing the majority and being inflammatory as he does it.

Look at his last article; the headline is 'No, that definitely was not pass interference'. However in the article he says is that DPI is too subjective for a spot foul. So why isn't the headline 'No, that was not pass interference'? If DPI is subjective, and contact occurred, how could this be definitive? Even if he thinks that in this case the rule was incorrectly applied, I have a hard time believing that he thinks this is a black and white call where the officials were clearly wrong.

As for the rest of your post... I haven't called you a troll. In fact outside of my first sarcastic post I've been civil. I'm not sure why you feel the need to start taking this personal. I don't think I can read minds, nor am I claiming to know for sure that Mike is lying. You're taking my stance to an extreme, and then calling it out as some sort of paranoia.

Also for the record I don't believe I've ever used Mike's opinion as evidence for anything. Generally the only time I give a member of the media's view any weight is if they back it with some detailed analysis. What I'd like to see is for one of these rule experts to compile videos of borderline calls that land on both sides of each rule, explain what differentiates them, and then apply that criteria to all the calls/no calls in each controversial game. What they currently do is just noise to me.

 

[IllegalContact]

Make all pass interference (both offense and defense) legal, the allow every player on offense be an eligible receiver, which includes allowing anyone on offense to set picks.........that should simply the game

Oh, and allow multiple offensive players to be in motion

 

[VJCPatriot]

Ridiculous. No doubt that having Pereira is an innovative gimmick to gather interest, but how do you equate THAT with him being dishonest in any way? Doesn't make a lick of sense. I already explained the particulars to you. People are just interested in what his take is. He doesn't have to lie to gain that interest. If you think he's lying I can't help you, and that's a ridiculous thing to assume. There is simply no reason for him to lie, as I've already explained.

I don't think Pereiera is a liar. But I'd definitely take his article with a HUGE grain of salt, because if you actually READ the article, what he does in there is say, I think the PI rule in the NFL is a pile of horse rubbish, therefore this call should not have been made. The guy simply does NOT like the Pass Interference rule as currently constituted. That does not mean the right call was not technically made at the time.

Or as some here have overdramatically proclaimed that the call was an 'Atrocity' that should never had been made in the history of football and 'Tainted' the Patriots victory. That is where I DISAGREE. The call was technically correct according to the rulebook, and although arguments can be made as to whether the "severity" of the infraction merited the flag, there are really ZERO TECHNICAL objections that can be made as to the correctness of the call.

Because as the rule states - the defensive back interfered with the receiver without ever turning his head or attempting to make a play on the ball and did so at least 3 times during the course of the play, including the pivotal moment in the endzone where he grabbed Boyce's elbow AND shoulder as he was reaching up to make the catch.

Should the pass interference rule be reformed? Maybe. But was the correct call made? Technically yes. Should it have been made at that point in time? It's arguable or nobody would be talking about it. But I don't buy into the argument that correct calls should not be made on fouls because it's late in the game. That just gives the defense an excuse to mug everyone in the final 2 minutes of a game just because it won't be called. To wit, taken to its extremity, that results in the Gronk noncall.

The fact that the proper call was made late in the game, although it was a close call, DOES NOT TAINT a hard earned victory in ANY WAY. The Browns and the Pats both had to play after the call, and one team made another big play after the call, and the other didn't.

No.

Context, son...context. You missed it.

You called yourself a troll. And now you're backtracking. That's fine if that's what you want to do. But that's what you just did. I don't care either way what you choose to call yourself.

 

[fightingirish595]

does anyone else feel that the ref saw the hook or interference or whatever you want to call it around the 5, and waited to see if he couldve caught the ball and then they just messed up where the ball shouldve been placed
i personally thought it was a marginal call but i can see why the ref thought it might of been PI

 

[Joker]

welp, I just got down here in Miami and I checked in to the Residence Inn...I asked Rosa, the Colombian concierge what SHE thought of the call and she said.."Me no know but mi tio, Carne...he say no intefero...no no no.."...guess troll meat is all over the dyam country...

 

[brdmaverick]

Memo to Refs: Pats fans on a certain message forum desire that all close calls go AGAINST US from now on. Please make it so. Otherwise the Patsfans.com forum will suffer a total MELTDOWN if another call goes our way!

I suggest that you also email and physically mail Goodell's office immediately so we can make sure that NO FURTHER calls go our way! That would simply be OUTRAGEOUS and we just won't STAND FOR IT!!!



Seriously, the angst over this borderline call by some of these so called Pats fans just boggles my mind. It's as if you've bought into the national media brainwashing that the Pats don't deserve any calls to go their way AND in fact must feel GUILTY if we get one in our favor. I don't get it. It's like ESPN-brainwashing or something.

*facepalm* :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:



At least you admit you're trolling. If you're not getting enough attention, maybe it's time to spring for that expensive sports car?

I'm not sure you could be anymore off base in the point I was making. As a biased Pats fan I was also thrilled we got the call, what Pats fan wouldn't be. BUT, BUT, BUT if we are being realistic and unbiased that's a bad call.

There are plenty of weeks when I complain about bad calls or non calls that don't go the Patriots way. Am I not allowed to say that the Pats actually got a break on one of those calls? Am I supposed to be a complete homer and pretend that only bad calls happen AGAINST the Pats and never for them?

No, not at all. From a Pats fan perspective I'm glad we got the call but I'm not afraid to say or admit it was a bad call.

If I was a Cleveland fan I'd be absolutely livid over it (just as we were about the Panthers non call).

Is that so bad?!?!?

I feel there are many homers here going well out of their way to defend the call. Is it so bad to admit that we got away with one?

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not sure you could be anymore off base in the point I was making. As a biased Pats fan I was also thrilled we got the call, what Pats fan wouldn't be. BUT, BUT, BUT if we are being realistic and unbiased that's a bad call.

There are plenty of weeks when I complain about bad calls or non calls that don't go the Patriots way. Am I not allowed to say that the Pats actually got a break on one of those calls? Am I supposed to be a complete homer and pretend that only bad calls happen AGAINST the Pats and never for them?

No, not at all. From a Pats fan perspective I'm glad we got the call but I'm not afraid to say or admit it was a bad call.

If I was a Cleveland fan I'd be absolutely livid over it (just as we were about the Panthers non call).

Is that so bad?!?!?

I feel there are many homers here going well out of their way to defend the call. Is it so bad to admit that we got away with one?

Its silly to assume everyone who feels the call was correct really knows it wasn't and are lying because of some homer agenda.
I couldn't really care less whether a win is because of good calls, bad calls, luck, injuries, weather or whatever. It goes in the book as a W, and that is all that matters.
But when a defender plays the man, and impedes him from making a play on the ball, it is PI. It would be if the Patriots were on defense to. I'd be pissed off about it, but liking or disliking the call has nothing to do with whether it is a good call or not.
If I were going to blindly support the call, then I would be blindly crying about calls that went against us. In recent memories the only calls I have complained about were blatant. The Gronk call. The holding on Gronk vs Arizona. I didn't really complain or argue the call against Chris Jones.
When your argument is that you dismiss an argument by claiming anyone who thinks it is flawed, you have no argument.
If you want to tell me it was a bad call, ditch the agenda BS and explain how making contact to impede a receiver when ignoring the football is not PI.

 

[brdmaverick]

If you want to tell me it was a bad call, ditch the agenda BS and explain how making contact to impede a receiver when ignoring the football is not PI.

Here you go....

Pass interference is like speeding. The rule as written is far different than enforcement.

By the written rule, yes, it was pass interference, but only in the same way that going 35 mph in a 30 mph zone is considered speeding.

Just as I would expect someone to be in an uproar getting a ticket for going 35 mph in a 30 zone, I expect a defender to be upset about getting flagged for that PI call. If we're flagging THAT play then there are going to be flags on almost every play.

I've heard it before, but not sure who gets the credit but someone once said "a flag could be thrown on every play." If defenders are getting away with that contact all the time, then I think they have a right to get upset when a flag is thrown.