vrabel trip

[SpiderFox53]

Then why does Vrabel's leg fling out after Rivers goes down? Here is a better view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bplFfY75co
Like I said, it doesn't mean that we would have won had it been called but it was a HUGE turning point. We are just feeling like you guys did playing indy with the refs.

If two objects are moving towards each other under power, and they meet just enough to cause a minor slow down, when they release from each other, there will be a reaction like what happened with Vrabel's leg as the power build up from the slow down is released.

I'm not saying what Vrabel did was intentional or not, I have no idea and neither do you. Only Vrabel knows and as you said, he's not telling. From just looking at the replays it appears that the trip was accidental, at least to me. You will obviously see it another way. From the video's, there is nothing obvious that Vrabel did that couldn't be explained by him being blocked to the ground. That's why there was no call.

 

[JakeLaMotta]

Excellent addition, djmika, and really blows away the argument of the Vrabel apologist army:

http://s198.photobucket.com/albums/aa314/The-Beasty/?action=view&current=LegWhip_0001.flv

Now let's review the claims of the apologist-in-chief, Andy Johnson:

Dabruinz,
It wasnt a missed call. Vrabel was blocked to the ground, and Rivers fell on his legs. It is not tripping if you are on the ground and someone trips over you, it is tripping if you purposely stick your leg out to trip a player. Vrabel did not do that, I watched it 5 times.

Cue up the video above, then:

1. Go to :20 where we see in FACT that Vrabel is NEVER blocked to the ground (as Andy wants us to believe) he's beaten his man pretty nicely. It's his own spin move that sends him falling clumsily toward the turf -- here Vrabel knows he's about to fall down past Rivers, and so we have the motive for him to do the tripping. It's the only way he's going to get Rivers at this point.

2. All doubt that Vrabel is doing this on purpose is removed by the little KICK UPWARD we see at :18, just as Vrabel passes Rivers. It's clear here whether or not he intended to do this on purpose -- why do you do a KICK if you're just falling down? Vrabel kicks like a Rockette here, and this has nothing to do with trying to break a fall or momentum or any other excuse you want to make for him.

Again, watch Vrabel's kick move at :18, then tell me with a straight face this was an accident.

Andy, we'll be expecting your official apology/correction now.

1-2-3 and KICK! Whee!

 

[Deus Irae]

Excellent addition, djmika, and really blows away the argument of the Vrabel apologist army:

http://s198.photobucket.com/albums/aa314/The-Beasty/?action=view&current=LegWhip_0001.flv

Now let's review the claims of the apologist-in-chief, Andy Johnson:



Cue up the video above, then:

1. Go to :20 where we see in FACT that Vrabel is NEVER blocked to the ground (as Andy wants us to believe) he's beaten his man pretty nicely. It's his own spin move that sends him falling clumsily toward the turf -- here Vrabel knows he's about to fall down past Rivers, and so we have the motive for him to do the tripping. It's the only way he's going to get Rivers at this point.

2. All doubt that Vrabel is doing this on purpose is removed by the little KICK UPWARD we see at :18, just as Vrabel passes Rivers. It's clear here whether or not he intended to do this on purpose -- why do you do a KICK if you're just falling down? Vrabel kicks like a Rockette here, and this has nothing to do with trying to break a fall or momentum or any other excuse you want to make for him.

Again, watch Vrabel's kick move at :18, then tell me with a straight face this was an accident.

Andy, we'll be expecting your official apology/correction now.

1-2-3 and KICK! Whee!

Again.... How was it that Vrabel was falling to the ground? It clearly wasn't just because he fell on his own, after all.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Then why does Vrabel's leg fling out after Rivers goes down? Here is a better view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bplFfY75co
Like I said, it doesn't mean that we would have won had it been called but it was a HUGE turning point. We are just feeling like you guys did playing indy with the refs.

Your contention is absolutely crap. I see a player going full out and going to the ground, at which case his body not under control. His leg did not "fling" out after Rivers. Rivers just couldn't get out of the way of a flying body.

Vrable was not blocked hard, but enough that going full speed at an angle would have caused him to go to the ground. He could not conrol his body any more than you could if you slipped running on black ice.

You video disproves any point that you are trying to make. No NFL ref would make that call, unless they were playing againts the Colts.

 

[JakeLaMotta]

Your contention is absolutely crap. I see a player going full out and going to the ground, at which case his body not under control. His leg did not "fling" out after Rivers. Rivers just couldn't get out of the way of a flying body.

Vrable was not blocked hard, but enough that going full speed at an angle would have caused him to go to the ground. He could not conrol his body any more than you could if you slipped running on black ice.

You video disproves any point that you are trying to make. No NFL ref would make that call, unless they were playing againts the Colts.

Cute slap against the Colts, especially considering what Vrabel gets away with here.

Anyway you're missing the point -- see what Vrabel does even AFTER he's past Rivers after the initial contact. Again -- he kicks up like a Rockette. Watch, it's like he's kicking at the air.

Now, explain that one to me. Why would a guy kick in that spot? Kicking there serves no purpose, such as breaking a fall or anything. So why does he kick even AFTER he's past Rivers?

Can't wait to hear this explanation...

 

[Grogan's neck roll]

Cute slap against the Colts, especially considering what Vrabel gets away with here.

Anyway you're missing the point -- see what Vrabel does even AFTER he's past Rivers after the initial contact. Again -- he kicks up like a Rockette. Watch, it's like he's kicking at the air.

Now, explain that one to me. Why would a guy kick in that spot? Kicking there serves no purpose, such as breaking a fall or anything. So why does he kick even AFTER he's past Rivers?

Can't wait to hear this explanation...

Wow, dude, you need to let it go, you're so ANGRY.

 

[Deus Irae]

Cute slap against the Colts, especially considering what Vrabel gets away with here.

Anyway you're missing the point -- see what Vrabel does even AFTER he's past Rivers after the initial contact. Again -- he kicks up like a Rockette. Watch, it's like he's kicking at the air.

Now, explain that one to me. Why would a guy kick in that spot? Kicking there serves no purpose, such as breaking a fall or anything. So why does he kick even AFTER he's past Rivers?

Can't wait to hear this explanation...

I'm still waiting for your explanation about how Vrabel ended up on the ground, since it was clearly not him just falling.

 

[BadMoFo]

We really got away with one there, looked like Vrabel was sliding into home base.

 

[djmika760]

Excellent addition, djmika, and really blows away the argument of the Vrabel apologist army:

http://s198.photobucket.com/albums/aa314/The-Beasty/?action=view&current=LegWhip_0001.flv

Now let's review the claims of the apologist-in-chief, Andy Johnson:



Cue up the video above, then:

1. Go to :20 where we see in FACT that Vrabel is NEVER blocked to the ground (as Andy wants us to believe) he's beaten his man pretty nicely. It's his own spin move that sends him falling clumsily toward the turf -- here Vrabel knows he's about to fall down past Rivers, and so we have the motive for him to do the tripping. It's the only way he's going to get Rivers at this point.

2. All doubt that Vrabel is doing this on purpose is removed by the little KICK UPWARD we see at :18, just as Vrabel passes Rivers. It's clear here whether or not he intended to do this on purpose -- why do you do a KICK if you're just falling down? Vrabel kicks like a Rockette here, and this has nothing to do with trying to break a fall or momentum or any other excuse you want to make for him.

Again, watch Vrabel's kick move at :18, then tell me with a straight face this was an accident.

Andy, we'll be expecting your official apology/correction now.

1-2-3 and KICK! Whee!

My point exactly! I never said he went after him with an intention to trip Rivers, but once he fell after his little spin move and was down there, he hooked Rivers' foot an a desperate attempt to do something while he was going down. Just like face-masks or holding...it's not what they intended to do from the start but in the heat of the moment they do it as a desperate attempt to make a play once they have been pretty much beat. Vrabel did not have that much forward momentum to justify his foot being "accidentally" flung after disengaging with Rivers' foot. Can't argue with physics...

 

[slackerjack]

My point exactly! I never said he went after him with an intention to trip Rivers, but once he fell after his little spin move and was down there, he hooked Rivers' foot an a desperate attempt to do something while he was going down. Just like face-masks or holding...it's not what they intended to do from the start but in the heat of the moment they do it as a desperate attempt to make a play once they have been pretty much beat. Vrabel did not have that much forward momentum to justify his foot being "accidentally" flung after disengaging with Rivers' foot. Can't argue with physics...

It would really be helpful to the discussion if you knew what you were talking about. Looking at the replay, it is clear that Vrabel's leg was coming forward at about the 11 yard line. Now River's right leg was at the 9 yard line. Vrabel's leg stopped at the 10 yard line. So it is appears to me that Rivers "stepped up" and met Vrabel at the 10. Isn't Vrabel entitled to that space as much as Rivers? It's not like Rivers was standing still.

 

[djmika760]

It would really be helpful to the discussion if you knew what you were talking about. Looking at the replay, it is clear that Vrabel's leg was coming forward at about the 11 yard line. Now River's right leg was at the 9 yard line. Vrabel's leg stopped at the 10 yard line. So it is appears to me that Rivers "stepped up" and met Vrabel at the 10. Isn't Vrabel entitled to that space as much as Rivers? It's not like Rivers was standing still.

So why the huge follow-through after disengagement? Some of you will never get it. I guess St. Vrabel can do no wrong in your eyes. He was applying pressure while locked up with Rivers' foot, hence his foot flinging forward after Rivers' fell. Vrabel had no forward motion when his foot disengaged with Rivers'. So how could Vrabels' foot fling out a yard AFTER being locked up with Rivers' unless he applied pressure to Rivers' foot? Answer...intentional tripping.

 

[Deus Irae]

So why the huge follow-through after disengagement? Some of you will never get it. I guess St. Vrabel can do no wrong in your eyes. He was applying pressure while locked up with Rivers' foot, hence his foot flinging forward after Rivers' fell. Vrabel had no forward motion when his foot disengaged with Rivers'. So how could Vrabels' foot fling out a yard AFTER being locked up with Rivers' unless he applied pressure to Rivers' foot? Answer...intentional tripping.

You keep avoiding a simple question. How did Vrabel end up on the ground since it's clearly not just a case of lost footing?

 

[Dojo Chargerfan]

You keep avoiding a simple question. How did Vrabel end up on the ground since it's clearly not just a case of lost footing?

he went to the ground. Rushers on every play find their way to the ground, doesn't mean he was held or dragged or whatever. The tripping was a desperate move to get a piece of Rivers but none the less was tripping and should have been called. To deflect the trip by pointing something else out is not the answer to any questions at all. Unfortunately, this was probably the biggest play in the game because we had the ball, down by 1, and driving with confidence in our offense. Maybe the turning point in the game, IMO.

I would ANYDAY give up one questionable noncall over a flag riddled day. I believe in letting the players win the game, not the officials. Too bad that it was so important of a play though because I honestly believed we could drive down the field all day on the Pats. Plus, you can't make many mistakes when you play the Patriots and that was a costly mistake.

 

[djmika760]

You keep avoiding a simple question. How did Vrabel end up on the ground since it's clearly not just a case of lost footing?

Jeromey Clary engaged Vrabel after his spin move, while Vrabel was loosing footing, which put Vrabel on the ground in front of Rivers. The point is the obvious flinging of Vrabels foot after Rivers fell which points to intentional tripping, right? Now that I have addressed your question, why don't you do the same for me. Why did Vrabel's foot fling out like a sling-shot after Rivers fell when Vrabel had no forward motion at that point???

 

[Dojo Chargerfan]

Jeromey Clary engaged Vrabel after his spin move, while Vrabel was loosing footing, which put Vrabel on the ground in front of Rivers. The point is the obvious flinging of Vrabels foot after Rivers fell which points to intentional tripping, right? Now that I have addressed your question, why don't you do the same for me. Why did Vrabel's foot fling out like a sling-shot after Rivers fell when Vrabel had no forward motion at that point???

Are you kidding me?!? Vrabel doesn't ever lose his footing! He has magic feet! If he ends up on the ground then it's always a hold. He doesn't do anything wrong EVER!

 

[Ring 6]

Jeromey Clary engaged Vrabel after his spin move, while Vrabel was loosing footing, which put Vrabel on the ground in front of Rivers. The point is the obvious flinging of Vrabels foot after Rivers fell which points to intentional tripping, right? Now that I have addressed your question, why don't you do the same for me. Why did Vrabel's foot fling out like a sling-shot after Rivers fell when Vrabel had no forward motion at that point???

The answer is very simple. He did NOT intentionally trip Rivers. His foot followed the natural motion of a player going to the ground. Rivers ran into it. End of sory.

 

[Oswlek]

he went to the ground. Rushers on every play find their way to the ground, doesn't mean he was held or dragged or whatever. The tripping was a desperate move to get a piece of Rivers but none the less was tripping and should have been called. To deflect the trip by pointing something else out is not the answer to any questions at all. Unfortunately, this was probably the biggest play in the game because we had the ball, down by 1, and driving with confidence in our offense. Maybe the turning point in the game, IMO.

I would ANYDAY give up one questionable noncall over a flag riddled day. I believe in letting the players win the game, not the officials. Too bad that it was so important of a play though because I honestly believed we could drive down the field all day on the Pats. Plus, you can't make many mistakes when you play the Patriots and that was a costly mistake.

I actually think that Vrabel did swing his leg out in an effort to trip Rivers. But I disagree with the bolded statement. Check out the drive log of this game and what do you see?

1) 3 plays, 9 yards, PUNT
2) 6 plays, 37 yards, PUNT
3) 4 plays, 11 yards, PUNT
4) 7 plays, 32 yards, FG
5) 9 plays, 56 yards, FG
6) 5 plays, 13 yards, INT
7) 3 plays, 15 yards, INT
8) 6 plays, 43 yards, FG

Halftime

7) 8 plays, 43 yards, FG
8) 4 plays, 16 yards, PUNT
9) 9 plays, 48 yards, PUNT

Out of 9 drives, 3 grade out as positive, three grade out as neutral and 5 grade out as negative. I gave a neutral on the first INT due to the possible penalty. I gave a neutral on the first FG drive because the offense did virtually nothing and it was really the defense that set that one up. I gave the final drive a neutral because they did make some nice plays and made some yardage, but ultimately it meant nothing.

Looking at the scoring drives, the drive right before the half was mostly a draw play against a prevent defense and the first one was set up mostly by the defense. Realistically, only twice in the entire game did SD get the ball on their half of the field and drive it down against NE's normal defense. If you think that qualifies for "driving down the field all day" then I'd hate to think what a bad offensive day would be.

 

[Ring 6]

Excellent addition, djmika, and really blows away the argument of the Vrabel apologist army:

http://s198.photobucket.com/albums/aa314/The-Beasty/?action=view&current=LegWhip_0001.flv

Now let's review the claims of the apologist-in-chief, Andy Johnson:



Cue up the video above, then:

1. Go to :20 where we see in FACT that Vrabel is NEVER blocked to the ground (as Andy wants us to believe) he's beaten his man pretty nicely. It's his own spin move that sends him falling clumsily toward the turf -- here Vrabel knows he's about to fall down past Rivers, and so we have the motive for him to do the tripping. It's the only way he's going to get Rivers at this point.

2. All doubt that Vrabel is doing this on purpose is removed by the little KICK UPWARD we see at :18, just as Vrabel passes Rivers. It's clear here whether or not he intended to do this on purpose -- why do you do a KICK if you're just falling down? Vrabel kicks like a Rockette here, and this has nothing to do with trying to break a fall or momentum or any other excuse you want to make for him.

Again, watch Vrabel's kick move at :18, then tell me with a straight face this was an accident.

Andy, we'll be expecting your official apology/correction now.

1-2-3 and KICK! Whee!

OK, I apoloogize for discussing this with someone who doesnt know what they are talking about. Vrabels legs did exactly what a players legs do when they fall to the ground, whether Rivers is anywhere near him or not. There is no conspiracy theory here. The ref saw it, and correctly called nothing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Jeromey Clary engaged Vrabel after his spin move, while Vrabel was loosing footing, which put Vrabel on the ground in front of Rivers. The point is the obvious flinging of Vrabels foot after Rivers fell which points to intentional tripping, right? Now that I have addressed your question, why don't you do the same for me. Why did Vrabel's foot fling out like a sling-shot after Rivers fell when Vrabel had no forward motion at that point???

Go find a friend. Have him beat you with a spin move. Then, pull on his arm to get him off balance and push him to the ground. Make sure the camera is on so you can see "the physics" of what happens. You will find that the feet go flying in the direction of the push.

By the way, are you now arguing about something that you claim came AFTER Rivers fell? That's important, because that would clearly have nothing to do with the interception.

 

[djmika760]

How many players do you see go down, then once down with no more forward motion their leg flies forward like a Jet Li move? The motion WAS natural until it engaged with Rivers' foot. The fling was as unnatural as Janice ****ens' face!