Welcome to PatsFans.com

Perreira on NFL Access

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pats726, Dec 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    yes....tonight, it was ALL Pats Ravens...from the interference call...to Gaffney's catch to the Scott meltdown.....an EASY night for him...What I find interesting is that NONE of these were as questionable as the Hobbs PI call...and that instead of having MORE of the calls from teh Colt's game..they had others...while this time it was devoted ALL to the Pats/Ravens...just typical of MP...and NFLN....
  2. CheerforTom

    CheerforTom Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It's easy for him to make his case against the refs being Pro-Patriots, because they're not. It's a pretty good feeling to argue your own innocence when you KNOW you're innocent.
  3. Kdo5

    Kdo5 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +12 / 5 / -1

    I thought the refs were great on the FINAL DRIVE. Ofcourse I am biased but every call seemed legit.
  4. He Ban Me

    He Ban Me Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What calls from the Colts game are you so interested in??:confused:
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    To me the point of it all is there should be NO question at all about the calls..NOT even close....why devote a whole segment to that...with OTHER more controversial things this week..
  6. NovaScotiaPatsFan

    NovaScotiaPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    For me, when it comes to the calls I like to be fair, I haven't had the time go back and look at the calls yet, but if they're bogus I'll say they're bogus, and if they're legit I'll say they're legit.
  7. chrisfx811

    chrisfx811 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'd like to see the explanation of the fumble turned incomplete pass.
    Just seems like they found an obscure interpretation, that most have never seen used before, to justify overturning a call that couldn't be overturned based on his knee being down.

    I'd really like a serious interpretation of the Colts/Pats PI calls and non calls from November as well, but we'll never get those.
  8. Joker

    Joker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    16,427
    Likes Received:
    241
    Ratings:
    +518 / 13 / -12

    heh...good one
  9. 5 Rings for Brady!!

    5 Rings for Brady!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The Dolts hold on every single play. I would start with the non-calls.

    Your sh1t franchise cheats more than any franchise in history. From the GM bullying the refs to the players on the field. To your offensive coach who is better than anyone in the league at stealing defensive signals.
  10. He Ban Me

    He Ban Me Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is odd, seeing as before the "tuck game", who had ever heard of the "tuck rule"? As I understand it, a player who is falling on his own accord (and not because of a tackle), must maintain the ball through the fall. Obviously, Ben did not do that. I was thinking (during the review process) that our BEST HOPE was that the ball be called incomplete. what I thought was curious (rewatching the game-CBS style) was that when they showed the replay, they showed it from the point (still frame) where the ball was already in the process of being caught, as if that instant was the point where Ben "had possession". It was a close call, but not shaking my head wondering where they came up with that call. I agree that he never had "possession". if you think he DID, you are saying you fell he did, then the ball starts to come out, before his leg touches the turf??

    Did you see the play where they called the false start (when Bethea picks it off, and clearly scores if play isn't whistled?) Nothing like the SD game where he has to go through 11 guys. Anyway, the TE rear barely moves, it was incredible that the ref even saw it, it was an instant before the snap. His head, shoulders, hands are motionless. Just a slight movement from his rump. Here's the deal though, I can't imagine all the bad mouthing that would have taken place HAD JAX scored on that play. In the end, it was the correct call, but how's come Jack ain't *****in' about that? After all, from his standpoint, it was due to the D-line "barking" signals (even though Jax was working on a silent count). He's a doofus when it comes to coaching and discipline. They are pissed because it was our guys that were popping his in the mouth, and in the end, got outplayed.
  11. SaCaCh

    SaCaCh Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    Sigh...for the 100th time, we all had because it was used against us in the first game against the Jets that year. It took away a McGinest fumble return after he made Vinny drop the ball. Thats why when most of us saw it, we imediately said "tuck rule", our ball, most of us were not surprised by the overturn.
  12. He Ban Me

    He Ban Me Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Contrary to what you might believe, most the rest of the country was going "WTF:eek: "
  13. Joker

    Joker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    16,427
    Likes Received:
    241
    Ratings:
    +518 / 13 / -12

    why is that a surprise...that's the exact words your daddy said to mommy the day you were born
  14. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    It has nothing to do with how you fall. Maintaining possession to the ground is applicable for any case where clear possession (meaning enough time with possession before falling) isn't established. Decleaters, sideline catches, forceouts, etc.

    The issue with that particular catch is that he wasn't falling, he was turning. He had possession of the ball with 2 feet down and enough time to turn his body. If you claim the ball was moving in his hands as he was turning, that's fine. The "maintaining possession to the ground" claim is pretty bogus in this case.

    These are the cases where I start to hate replay. Nothing in the replay showed anything that the official on the field couldn't or didn't see. The ref just asserted his opinion over the standing call on the field without overwhelming evidence. Replay should never take a correct call and overturn it.
  15. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,181
    Likes Received:
    197
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -9

    #61 Jersey

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  16. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Perreira was asked why the refs don't just let them play in the last 2 minutes so they decide the outcome. Perreira said no the refs should call it the same way throughout the game. Then why didn't the refs call holding earlier in the game? The problem with PI type calls, Mr Perreira is that your refs aren't consistent in how they call PI type calls.
  17. ATippett56

    ATippett56 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,794
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +21 / 0 / -0

    That's why PI should only be a 15 yard penalty. Pass interference has become WAY TO SUBJECTIVE!
  18. He Ban Me

    He Ban Me Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well, I've heard that the rule was you have to maintain possession as you fall, others say once you start to turn, that rule no longer applies. So, I am unsure what the REAL rule is. Not sure what "turning" has to do with it in the first place. Many guys turn before they complete the catch (look upfield before looking the ball in). If this is the rule, than the NFL is making a pretty big assumption that BECAUSE you have TURNED, you have COMPLETED your catch. Generally, this is the best way to ensure you catch the ball, by waiting to turn until after ball is secured, but it doesn't always happen that way. In any event, the replay, to me, shows he never had "possession" of the ball to begin with. And if you are saying he did, then there was little to no time between his possession, and his leg hitting the turf, meaning down by contact. I don't know man, to hang your hat (not necessarily you, but in general) on that ONE first quarter play as THE play that LOST the game for you, then there's no reasoning to begin with.
  19. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    It isn't even the call that really bothers me. If the call on the field had been incomplete and not reversed on review, I would have thought it was a bad call (we've seen plenty of those) and moved on. The fact that the correct call was made on the field and reversed on review, that really does bother me.

    Replay is meant to fix mistakes, not inject them. If the situation isn't black and white, let the call on the field stand. To do otherwise reeks of potential bias and even foul play.
  20. He Ban Me

    He Ban Me Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I don't agree that the correct call was made on the field. what bothers me is the INCORRECT call was made on Gaffney's catch, but the refs didn't have the sacks to overturn it:p
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>