These two things aren't mutually exclusive, so stop arguing about it:

[Fixit]

1) The Colts deserve credit for their big comeback and they deserved to win

2) The Pats got seriously jobbed on several calls that either led to Colts points or took Pats points off the board.

Both statements are true.

The Pats had several chances to put the game away, and blew most of them. However, on the occasions they seized an opportunity, it was taken away: the lame Brown PI call (which every team uses and which never gets called) near the end of the first half kept the Pats from increasing their lead, and that non-PI on Caldwell was both inexcusable and an absolute killer.

The Colts played their asses off, but were gifted a few times, too: the "roughing" call on Manning and that ridiculous no-touch call on Hobbs which gave them a first-and-goal. To their credit, they capitalized every time, and that's what winning teams do.

Pittsburgh deserved to win the SB last year, because they made more plays than Seattle, but the universe is in agreement that the Seahawks got rolled by the refs.

Recognizing one of the two above contentions doesn't mean the other isn't true.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

1) The Colts deserve credit for their big comeback and they deserved to win

2) The Pats got seriously jobbed on several calls that either led to Colts points or took Pats points off the board.

Both statements are true.

The Pats had several chances to put the game away, and blew most of them. However, on the occasions they seized an opportunity, it was taken away: the lame Brown PI call (which every team uses and which never gets called) near the end of the first half kept the Pats from increasing their lead, and that non-PI on Caldwell was both inexcusable and an absolute killer.

The Colts played their asses off, but were gifted a few times, too: the "roughing" call on Manning and that ridiculous no-touch call on Hobbs which gave them a first-and-goal. To their credit, they capitalized every time, and that's what winning teams do.

Pittsburgh deserved to win the SB last year, because they made more plays than Seattle, but the universe is in agreement that the Seahawks got rolled by the refs.

Recognizing one of the two above contentions doesn't mean the other isn't true.

All very well put. I also disagree with people who say not to complain about referees. As fans we're the ones paying through ticket sales, TV viewing, merchandise, concessions, for the service/product of watching professional football. Refereeing is a fairly decent sized portion of this product. To sit back and say nothing about something deficient about the product would be basically not getting your money's worth as a consumer.

I feel fairly strongly that ANY call should be challengeable. Why is the NFL so scared of this? If coaches and players can be openly criticized, why not officials?

 

[Fixit]

I feel fairly strongly that ANY call should be challengeable.

I have two things to say to that:

1) Yes

2) Hell, yes

 

[MTaylorJ1]

I have two things to say to that:

1) Yes

2) Hell, yes

When you think about it. In the biggest game of the season, the Patriots were unable to use either of their available challenges. Despite the fact that there were at least 3 calls that were questionable that played a big factor in the game. Let's say Belichick challenges 2. We'll go with Troy's OPI, and the DPI on Hobbs. If even 1 of those gets overturned. The Patriots win that game. And they had a timeout to spare in each half.

Why characterize which type of call can be challenged. Aren't all challenges already on referee decisions to begin with?

I forget exactly why they said they couldn't do this, but they said something about bogging the game down.