Official Pats/Colts Postgame thread

[FootballFan85]

Get your phantom replay here. Phantom replay.

YouTube - patsscrewed

Is that actually the replay you were talking about? I can't even believe that. Yes I did watch the entire game and I thought for sure you were talking about something that I somehow hadn't seen.

That replay actually does NOTHING for your argument.

1) The claims that he had control before Bullitt made contact are proven incorrect. THat video is in SLOW MOTION and in slo-mo its obvious he doesnt have clear control of the ball in his hands until 0:28 and Bullitt has already clearly begun contact.

2) Notice his right leg at 0:28. His knee is bent, his foot is in the air. Again, Bullitt is making contact. This is not yet a possession at this time because he doesnt have both feet down. Again, refer to the rule book for what constitutes a catch.

3) We don't see his right leg come down again until 0:30/0:31 when he's clearly being knocked back and the ball is clearly behind his original spot.

If anything, all this slow motion replay shows is that his possession of the ball was incredibly difficult to judge on the field, and is immensely debatable. Remember, hes not in possession, with an official catch, until he controls the ball with his hands (0:28) and both feet have touched the ground (knee up at 0:28 foot not down, then placed down at 0:30)

And thats watching it in slow motion! Imagine being a ref on the field watching it at full speed!

You're really telling me you think it was clear cut? Yikes.

Wow. I'm not going to bother arguing it anymore than. You just provided your own evidence against you. I mean really watch that slow motion replay. It's amazing. It actually completely shows just how close it actually was. Unless you want to ignore the rules of what a catch is. Then you're right. Totally an obvious first down!

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow. I'm not going to bother arguing it anymore than. You just provided your own evidence against you. I mean really watch that slow motion replay. It's amazing. It actually completely shows just how close it actually was. Unless you want to ignore the rules of what a catch is. Then you're right. Totally an obvious first down!

Actually, if you combine replay #1 with replay #2 to match up the possession with the positioning of the legs, it becomes abundantly clear that he made the first down.

 

[FootballFan85]

Actually, if you combine replay #1 with replay #2 to match up the possession with the positioning of the legs, it becomes abundantly clear that he made the first down.

Replay 1 he has control at 0:15 when his right foot comes down. Not until then is it a catch. He's leaning VERY FAR back. Where is the ball? Is it at a first? Probably, but by VERY little. It is well back of where he first touched it in the air.

All I'm trying to say here is that this is VERY close and if you repeated it 10 times, it would probably be called both ways 5 times each.

 

[upstater1]

Actually, if you combine replay #1 with replay #2 to match up the possession with the positioning of the legs, it becomes abundantly clear that he made the first down.

Exactly, that's what I'm talking about.

You synch up #1 with #2 and you get a clear first down.

Only a blind homer couldn't see that, and this is why unbiased analysts like Mariucci agree with me, and Mariucci also said that Football Fans who know nothing about the rulebook should just shut up. :singing:

 

[reflexblue]

First time i've seen the play, it didn't look like he was juggling it. More importantly how would the reff who called it know unless he had X-Ray vision, Faulk's back was to him. I'm glad i didn't see it at that point something would have gotten broken.

 

[upstater1]

A couple of things:

1) After going through this exercise again and again, like we always do about one call or another when one goes the wrong way, I can conclusively say precisely d1ck.

There is no objective unrebuttable case that we got that first down. I simply saw no angle during that play that made it incontrovertible that he had possession of that ball at the spot where we wanted him to have possession.

The only thing you can say with any certainty is that it was a very close call -- exactly the opposite of the ridiculous assertion that it was an obvious clear-cut case of the bad bad refs giving the game to the colts.

It was a close call that did not go our way.

1a) Please give me the camera angle at which the 30 yard line is precisely parallel to a camera placed on the 30, with the forward or backward motion of the play perpindicular to that angle. That is the ONLY way you are viewing the play with absolutely no distortion due to the camera placement.

1b) That camera placed at an extension of the 30 yard lane may also need to be equipped with some form of penetrating scanning device, perhaps an x-ray emitter placed at the 30 on the opposite sideline, so that the camera we have placed on the 30 getting the angle we want can also penetrate things like soft tissue and uniforms and pick up when the ball is firmly in the control of the receiver (we are assuming that we will get some at least fuzzy representation of the ball using this technique; perhaps a thin lead lining inside the ball would be a good idea.)

1c) Of course, a stop-frame sequence would be of a lot of value here, given the steps we have suggested to measure the actual position of the receiver and the position of the ball when it is in his grasp.

1d) It would also be helpful if the measurement with the chains showed up on this sequence, so we are measuring by the chains, and not by a computer graphics guy's idea of where the yellow line goes at NBC. In the clip posted, the chains remain on the sidelines.

2) Regarding "the refs" screwing us every time we lose:

- I have observed both here and on rival fans' boards that the incidence of referee corruption and incompetence increase in inverse proportion to the desired outcome of the fan base, when the adverse outcome is what actually occurs.

- This happens with so much frequency that I cannot ascribe it to coincidence

- The remaining explanations are observer error, or that referees are simultaneously biased against the losing teams of several fan bases, for a variety of interwoven reasons that together describe an overall league-wide "scripting" policy, perhaps akin to that of professional wrestling.

- The argument for observer error, however, is compelling; whereas a dispassionate observer is ideal for determining such hypothesized behavior on the refs' parts, it is precisely the fans - short for "fanatics" - who typically make the judgement of referee collusion/incompetence.

- Absent a strong argument that fans are, in fact, unbiased observers, I conclude that things we did not want to happen happened, and that is the source of our strongest protestations regarding this game.

- Please don't misread me... this doesn't make me happy... this game's outcome SUCKED. It also doesn't mean that every questioned call MUST have happened to the good; there ARE some borderline calls. There always are. You get some, you don't get others. But I can't look at this game and say they're open-and-shut cases of the whole world (in the person of the refs) being against us. It just looked to me like we didn't get what we wanted.

PFnV

On 1, the replay here is better than the others. It shows when Faulk possessed the ball, so we don't need xrays. It's also easy to synch up with the other replays since we can see Bullitt's hand come in, and we know that Faulk possessed it then. Which means, mark Faulk at the spot where Bullitt's hand comes in, and that happens AFTER Faulk possesses it.

The angle becomes irrelevant because Faulk's left leg is on the 30, and his body is parallel to the sideline, meaning he football is passed the 30.

I agree with you that refs make mistakes like this and no way can you blame the loss on this one call. That being said, the refs need to do a better job than allowing the blind side ref to mark it. If anything, he should mark it at the 32 because he saw neither a bobble nor possession.

 

[Deus Irae]

Replay 1 he has control at 0:15 when his right foot comes down. Not until then is it a catch. He's leaning VERY FAR back. Where is the ball? Is it at a first? Probably, but by VERY little. It is well back of where he first touched it in the air.

All I'm trying to say here is that this is VERY close and if you repeated it 10 times, it would probably be called both ways 5 times each.

But you're wrong. By the time his left leg is down, he's got possession (See :28-:29). So, merging that with replay #1, where the left foot is actually touching the 30 yard line with the leg extended from his body, you clearly see that the most forward part of the ball MUST be on the other side of the 30. Since the start of the series was after a touchback, the ball only needed to touch the 30 yard line.

It's a definite first down.

 

[BradysBunch12]

I'm looking at the big picture, and this season for all intents and purposes is over if we have to play Indy again. Let's face it, the tables have turned. Our offense is better than the 01-04 years, but our defense isn't the shut-down defense it was the years we owned the Colts.

I never felt comfortable that whole game, because I knew that the Colts were capable of coming back on THIS defense, especially in a dome.

A win last night would have slammed the door shut on the Colts and essentially told them "You're a pretender. You're 8-1 record means nothing and we'll get you again in the playoffs, too." Instead, the Colts leave the game feeling, "We saw their best, and we didn't play well at all, and still managed to win."

I will watch the rest of the games this year, but I expect a 12-4, 11-5 record and nothing in the playoffs unless someone does our dirty work for us and knocks off the Colts.

I never thought I'd say this, but Manning is in Belichick's head, and last night proved it. And not even 2 INT and a decent showing by our defense up until the last 5 minutes was enough to win.

Call me Debbie Downer all you want, but the 01-04 Pats wouldn't have lost this game. The Pats haven't been the same since the Eagles Superbowl.

I hear all the "What about 07" chants. Yeah, what about 07? We didn't win the Super Bowl. Stats and regular season wins are for Colts fans, so throw 07 right out the door.

 

[upstater1]

I'm looking at the big picture, and this season for all intents and purposes is over if we have to play Indy again. Let's face it, the tables have turned. Our offense is better than the 01-04 years, but our defense isn't the shut-down defense it was the years we owned the Colts.

I never felt comfortable that whole game, because I knew that the Colts were capable of coming back on THIS defense, especially in a dome.

A win last night would have slammed the door shut on the Colts and essentially told them "You're a pretender. You're 8-1 record means nothing and we'll get you again in the playoffs, too." Instead, the Colts leave the game feeling, "We saw their best, and we didn't play well at all, and still managed to win."

I will watch the rest of the games this year, but I expect a 12-4, 11-5 record and nothing in the playoffs unless someone does our dirty work for us and knocks off the Colts.

I never thought I'd say this, but Manning is in Belichick's head, and last night proved it. And not even 2 INT and a decent showing by our defense up until the last 5 minutes was enough to win.

Call me Debbie Downer all you want, but the 01-04 Pats wouldn't have lost this game. The Pats haven't been the same since the Eagles Superbowl.

I hear all the "What about 07" chants. Yeah, what about 07? We didn't win the Super Bowl. Stats and regular season wins are for Colts fans, so throw 07 right out the door.

The Patriots played the same way against the Rams, the Panthers, whenever they get a lead. They let up and Belichick plays it safe.

It didn't change in 2004. It's the way Belichick has always been.

 

[BradysBunch12]

The Patriots played the same way against the Rams, the Panthers, whenever they get a lead. They let up and Belichick plays it safe.

It didn't change in 2004. It's the way Belichick has always been.

Yes, but the Pats were the ones making the final play on offense, not the other team. Those teams had "it."

 

[bostonia3333]

I'm not gonna rip the refs here, don't have the energy for it.

I feel bad for Randy Moss in all of this---the guy has been through some heartbreaking losses in his career going back to 98 with the Vikings. The guy's skills are not human, he's the one guy I want to see win a title before his career is over. That look he had on the sideline when the Colts made it 34-28 was tough to see--it was like, here we go again.

 

[Itsallovernow]

3rd and 2 you run the ball even with Maroney u are going to get a yard most likely. or even a qb sneak. BB needs his head examined....

Totally, maybe the hoodie was overrated all along.

 

[upstater1]

Totally, maybe the hoodie was overrated all along.

He ran with Faulk, he ran with Maroney, all during the 4th quarter. He was probably sick of seeing 2 yard losses.

The Colts were run blitzing. Whoever was calling the plays needed to call max protect and go downfield.

 

[upstater1]

Yes, but the Pats were the ones making the final play on offense, not the other team. Those teams had "it."

But that's really only a measure of timing, no?

We were ahead of Carolina, and fell behind. We had to score.

We were ahead of the Rams, and they tied it. We had to score.

We were ahead of the Colts, and they jumped ahead, 30 seconds on the clock.

Same with the Giants.

In other words, we played bad pass D in the 4th quarter of all 4 key games, and we had to score in two of those, and we did. I do not doubt that if Brady gets the ball with a minute left, he scores a FG in these games.

Think about it, if Addai is allowed to score, the Patriots have a 60% chance of lining up for a game-winning field goal.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

On 1, the replay here is better than the others. It shows when Faulk possessed the ball, so we don't need xrays. It's also easy to synch up with the other replays since we can see Bullitt's hand come in, and we know that Faulk possessed it then. Which means, mark Faulk at the spot where Bullitt's hand comes in, and that happens AFTER Faulk possesses it.

The angle becomes irrelevant because Faulk's left leg is on the 30, and his body is parallel to the sideline, meaning he football is passed the 30.

I agree with you that refs make mistakes like this and no way can you blame the loss on this one call. That being said, the refs need to do a better job than allowing the blind side ref to mark it. If anything, he should mark it at the 32 because he saw neither a bobble nor possession.

I just don't have the certainty you guys have. At the top of this thread there is the "patsscrewed" video. On that one, his foot leaves a bloody impression on the grass that is just before the 30. The foot positioning does not, therefore, prove the point. Where the ball is in relation to his foot is not to my amateur eye discernible without question to be past where the computer graphics guy put the yellow line. And of course we all have the angle to consider, which is not a pure side-view angle.

It's just a very close call that went against us -- you guys see an open-and-shut we-got-screwed call. I see a call where I just don't have that same certainty.

PFnV

 

[BradyFTW!]

Exactly, that's what I'm talking about.

You synch up #1 with #2 and you get a clear first down.

Only a blind homer couldn't see that, and this is why unbiased analysts like Mariucci agree with me, and Mariucci also said that Football Fans who know nothing about the rulebook should just shut up. :singing:

Pretty much- it's a fine line to walk, because I don't want to make any excuses for the Pats, who absolutely deserved to lose, or take anything away from the Colts, who deserved the win. That was a blown call by the refs, but it's the Pats' fault that a) they let it come down a judgment call and b) they were too busy pissing away timeouts to leave one to challenge it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes, but the Pats were the ones making the final play on offense, not the other team. Those teams had "it."

That might be the dumbest explanation I've ever heard. I guess that, as a poster and evaluator, you just don't have "it", and therefore you should be ignored.

 

[bleeds speed blue]

Hey guys, great game. The feeling is not all roses and wine here in Indy either. This game really came down to inches, on several plays. Back and forth. I felt queasy all day, knowing we got the win, but more terrified of Moss than I ever have been. Our defense has been stopping people all year, Moss and Welker lit us up. We were lucky to get the win. I'll admit. Bellichek did what he had to do and I understand his reckoning. I think you guys getting the first down was the only way to win the game at that point. The ball was bobbled for sure, I can't say I am the all telling bad camera angle dechipherer that you would need to be to spot the ball. Close football games are what makes this game exciting. I am proud to be watching this rivalry and just enjoying the little upswing we have had lately. In all humbleness, The Patriots are for real and a formiddable opponent. Good luck next week against the Jets

 

[jsull87]

well done to sebastien vollmer first time freeney hasn't had a sack. I think it should be interesting to see what happens to the line when light gets back...

 

[ausbacker]

Personally, it all could have been avoided if Brady hits a wide open Welker over the middle for an easy 5-6 yard pick up. It didn't even look like he was looking for anyone other than Faulk.

This is pointless going on about the judge blowing a call or what not, the fact is we wasted 2 crucial timeouts.