Official Pats/Colts Postgame thread

[upstater1]

Can't blame the ref. They are humans.Most of us needed replays to see it should have been a first. BB messed up by burning timeouts.

BB didn't burn the timeouts. His players did. He used the third timeout before the most crucial play of the game.

 

[the Patriot]

Officials have given the Patriots plenty of first downs when it could have gone either way. They call the game the best they can. It's our fault for using up our time outs, because that call had a very good chance of being overturned.

 

[FootballFan85]

First off, during the game they showed the replay close up of Faulk securing the ball.

Second, what in the world does "feet down" got to do with this discussion?

Feet down is totally irrelevant.

Feet down is not irrelevant. Read the rule as posted above. Jesus don't you people know the rules?

You don't have possession of a catch until you have the ball clearly controlled and both feet or another part of your body on the ground. If you grab the ball with both feed down, lose possession and then regain it with ONE foot on the ground, you don't have possession again until BOTH feet, or another part of your body touch.

Unless Faulk has both feet down, with the ball clearly under control, he does not have possession. We can sit here and watch replays all we want, but if the ref on the field by judgement didn't recognize that Faulk had full control, and both feet down (whether he did or didnt is up for debate), then calling him down when the rest of his body hits the ground would, technically by the rules, be the right call.

Now let me reiteate, I beleive it was a first down, I just dont understand how you people can claim it was so clear when it obviously was not, at all, clear.

 

[upstater1]

That video is FROM THE game. You can clearly hear Al and Chris talking. It is literally exactly what was shown on NBC.

I'm saying it's a short video and during the game they had replays of Faulk catching the ball close up.

If you synch them together it's easy to prove he caught it a full yard beyond the line. Before the defender makes contact, Faulk has already secured the ball.

In the replay I'm talking about, Faulk's upper body takes up the whole video screen.

It was a close up.

Did you not watch the game?

 

[BradyManny]

Here's a screen cap from 0:58 in the vid like you said. Are you really telling me his clearly and well beyond the 1st down line, and that you can clearly say both his feet are down? They don't seem to be in this still, and this is YOUR time, not mine. And remember, if you rotated this angle to be dead centre along the line, it would appear closer to the line than it is. That's just perspective and not arguable.



Cmon guys. I'm agreeing with you that it was probably a first, but can you guys really look at all of this and say that it wasnt a very close call, made by a human being on the field where they could have EASILY erred?

If you review it, maybe there's enough to overturn it, maybe not. But this was not some huge obvious botched call like the PI was. This was a very close call, with a lot of aspects (bobble, possession regain, feet down, tackle happening, etc), that had to be seen and judged by a human being, and not anything uncommon for the NFL. If the spot was missed, it was missed by inches, not feet. That happens ALL the time.

Maybe Faulk should've just caught the ball cleanly and this wouldn't be a discussion!

Are you serious? Look at where his body is - its a FULL YARD over the yellow line.

Note the white line I drew through Faulk's body. That's where the ball is. And remember, the still you took was worst case scenario of where forward progress was stopped assuming the bobble.

It was a horrible call - they NEVER make this call. They ALWAYS give the benefit to the offense on forward progress. The ref is looking right at it. He tried to get cute for some reason and made the call he did. Maybe he over thought it. I don't know, but it's a terrible call.

 

[FootballFan85]

Officials have given the Patriots plenty of first downs when it could have gone either way. They call the game the best they can. It's our fault for using up our time outs, because that call had a very good chance of being overturned.

We have a winner! Marginal spots go both ways, all the time, in every game. It's unfortunate the Pats had no time outs because this one very well MAY have been overturned. But this was in no way some travesty of officiating the way some people are trying to make it into.

 

[upstater1]

Feet down is not irrelevant. Read the rule as posted above. Jesus don't you people know the rules?

You don't have possession of a catch until you have the ball clearly controlled and both feet or another part of your body on the ground. If you grab the ball with both feed down, lose possession and then regain it with ONE foot on the ground, you don't have possession again until BOTH feet, or another part of your body touch.

Unless Faulk has both feet down, with the ball clearly under control, he does not have possession. We can sit here and watch replays all we want, but if the ref on the field by judgement didn't recognize that Faulk had full control, and both feet down (whether he did or didnt is up for debate), then calling him down when the rest of his body hits the ground would, technically by the rules, be the right call.

Now let me reiteate, I beleive it was a first down, I just dont understand how you people can claim it was so clear when it obviously was not, at all, clear.

You don't know the rules.

You get forward progress if you're in the air and the defender knocks you back.

Feet down is totally irrelevant.

These are basic rules of football, and you're getting them wrong.

 

[bakes781]

Feet down isn't relevant because he's being pushed back in mid air. Forward progress can't be taken away by the defender. The force out rule is no longer too in case you weren't aware.

 

[DaBruinz]

P.S., Bruinz, here's the rule

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone

I don't know where you get the idea that different parts of the field have different rules for catch and possession. Maybe you should learn the game a little. Sidelines, middle of the field, etc. It's all the same.

Do you even READ what you post? The very first sentence of the rule you quoted gives Faulk possession. The "bobble" occured PRIOR to the possession being established. It's not considered a "LOOSE" ball. Maybe you should learn about the "order of events."

Where do I get the idea that there are different rules for the different parts of the field? Because there are. As I pointed out, with forward progress, a player gets the distance of where the ball was regardless of where his second foot ends up on the ground. However, that rule doesn't apply to the sidelines anymore. On the sidelines, both feet have to be INBOUNDS.

 

[FootballFan85]

Are you serious? Look at where his body is - its a FULL YARD over the yellow line.

Note the white line I drew through Faulk's body. That's where the ball is. And remember, the still you took was worst case scenario of where forward progress was stopped assuming the bobble.

It was a horrible call - they NEVER make this call. They ALWAYS give the benefit to the offense on forward progress.

Do me a favor and draw a similar white line through the colts player who's standing inside the line of scrimage. His feet are clearly within the red line, but magically it looks like his shoulders and head are a good yard past! Do you really think he's leaning over THREE FEET?

It's called perspective. You're looking from an ELEVATED angle BEHIND the play. Your white line means literally absolutely nothing. The only view that would be 100% conclusive would be a direct view staring down the yard line,

 

[FootballFan85]

You don't know the rules.

You get forward progress if you're in the air and the defender knocks you back.

Feet down is totally irrelevant.

These are basic rules of football, and you're getting them wrong.

I feel like I'm in crazy town.

You get forward progress only when you have control. Ok? It's simple.

So if Faulk had've held on to the ball cleanly, there would be no question because the ref would give him foreward progress right then and there.

But he doesn't, he bobbles it. Which means forward progress does not come into effect again until he has complete control.

The question is WHEN he had complete control. K? And THAT is determined by when he regains control of the ball with BOTH feet down.

Get it?

The rule is very clear and I posted it for all to read. Faulk's forward progress on his initial touch is nullified the SECOND he bobbles the ball, and is not re-established until he has obivous possession.

So by bobbling the ball, he forces the ref to make a judgement call on WHEN he regains full possession.

This is why the two feet down part is important.

I really don't know how much simpler I can make this?

 

[DaBruinz]

Feet down is not irrelevant. Read the rule as posted above. Jesus don't you people know the rules?

You don't have possession of a catch until you have the ball clearly controlled and both feet or another part of your body on the ground. If you grab the ball with both feed down, lose possession and then regain it with ONE foot on the ground, you don't have possession again until BOTH feet, or another part of your body touch.

Unless Faulk has both feet down, with the ball clearly under control, he does not have possession. We can sit here and watch replays all we want, but if the ref on the field by judgement didn't recognize that Faulk had full control, and both feet down (whether he did or didnt is up for debate), then calling him down when the rest of his body hits the ground would, technically by the rules, be the right call.

Now let me reiteate, I beleive it was a first down, I just dont understand how you people can claim it was so clear when it obviously was not, at all, clear.

YOU clearly are the one with the issue. YOU are the one who doesn't understand the rules. As you so CLEARLY pointed out, Faulk doesn't have possession initially, however he does establish it PRIOR to getting hit by Bullitt. So, forward progress IS the order of the day. Its called the sequence of events. I know its hard for you to understand that.

The part of the possession rule that you are quoting refers to the player already having possession, losing it and then regaining it. Faulk didn't have possession on the initial contact with the ball. He did, however, catch it, maintain possession all the way down and after being hit by Bullitt. And it was the hit by Bullitt, AFTER Faulk had possession, that knocked him back over the 30 yard line. You're lovely video link shows that as well.

 

[Bostonian1962]

The Perfect Storm

There are few times in sports, where there are a "perfect storm" of events leading to changing the outcome of a game (Game 6 of the 1986 World Series was one). This was one.

The Patriots win/likely win the game IF:

1. They come away with a chip shot field goal, instead of Maroney fumbling the ball at the one.
2. They come away with a chip shot filed goal, instead of an end zone interception in the second half.
3. They didn't "burn" their a time out, so that they could have challenged the poor spot on the Faulk catch.
4. The refs give Faulk fwd momentum on aforementioned Faulk catch, on 4th and 2.
5. The ref doesn't call a horrific interference on Indy's second to last drive. DB didn't have his hands on the receiver, didn't lock his arm into the receiver, did pull on the receiver's jersey, and turned to intercept the ball, which he has a right to. That was not interference, and that one call probably determined who has home field for the playoffs.
6. BB makes Manning go 70 or 80 yards for the win, instead of 29 yards.
7. Oh, and by the way, take a look at the game winning catch by Wayne, and tell me he didn't blatently push off on the DB. He CLEARLY did, and if you can call a phantom penalty against the Patriots with the game on the line, you HAVE to have the guts to call that one.

In the years I've been on PatsFans, I almost never, if at all blame the refs for a loss. It's just not my style. In fact, I'm not blaming them now. These iffy calls had such an impact on the season, that it's impossible for me not to say something. A very good Indy Colts fan here at work said to me this morning, "I admit, all the bad calls went against you guys", and that SHOULD NEVER happen in such an important game.

One last random comment. I was getting fed up with the broadcasters continuously mentioning the two rookie Colt CB's, with little mention that S. Springs was injured, and the Pats were starting a rookie CB too. They played essentially the whole game without 3 defensive linemen (Green, Warren, and Banta-Cain), were missing Fred Taylor and Sammie Morris, not too mention several other players, on the road, and only lost because of "The Perfect Storm.

 

[BradyManny]

Do me a favor and draw a similar white line through the colts player who's standing inside the line of scrimage. His feet are clearly within the red line, but magically it looks like his shoulders and head are a good yard past! Do you really think he's leaning over THREE FEET?

It's called perspective. You're looking from an ELEVATED angle BEHIND the play. Your white line means literally absolutely nothing. The only view that would be 100% conclusive would be a direct view staring down the yard line,

Obviously I can't account for perspective, but you're dramatically overstating its affects. I drew my line parallel to the 1st down line. Where it meets Kevin Faulk's body is where the plane of the ball would be. The plane of the ball is nearly 1 yard away from the 1st down line.

 

[bakes781]

BB didn't burn the timeouts. His players did. He used the third timeout before the most crucial play of the game.

The players burned timeouts because the coaches weren't prepared. Just like they should have been prepared on 3rd down, that if they failed to convert that they'd be going for it on 4th.

 

[FootballFan85]

YOU clearly are the one with the issue. YOU are the one who doesn't understand the rules. As you so CLEARLY pointed out, Faulk doesn't have possession initially, however he does establish it PRIOR to getting hit by Bullitt. So, forward progress IS the order of the day. Its called the sequence of events. I know its hard for you to understand that.

The part of the possession rule that you are quoting refers to the player already having possession, losing it and then regaining it. Faulk didn't have possession on the initial contact with the ball. He did, however, catch it, maintain possession all the way down and after being hit by Bullitt. And it was the hit by Bullitt, AFTER Faulk had possession, that knocked him back over the 30 yard line. You're lovely video link shows that as well.

See here's the fun part, YOU are claiming he had clear possession. If you go to the COlts board, they claim the opposite. If you go to other teams boards, many are split. Amazing no?

And watch the video again, Bullitt is clearly initiating the hit AS Faulk is regaining possession.

I'm not trying to say this wasn't a first. What I am trying to say is that it was a close, and live play on the field, that was easily close enough for any ref to get wrong. It was not some obvious and unforgivable botched call the way some Pats fans are making it out to be.

This spot was missed by inches, not feet. And it was a play with so many elements, its easy to see how a mistake could be made.

Too bad there were no timeouts left or the Pats MIGHT have had it overturned.

 

[DaBruinz]

I feel like I'm in crazy town.

You get forward progress only when you have control. Ok? It's simple.

So if Faulk had've held on to the ball cleanly, there would be no question because the ref would give him foreward progress right then and there.

But he doesn't, he bobbles it. Which means forward progress does not come into effect again until he has complete control.

The question is WHEN he had complete control. K? And THAT is determined by when he regains control of the ball with BOTH feet down.

Get it?

The rule is very clear and I posted it for all to read. Faulk's forward progress on his initial touch is nullified the SECOND he bobbles the ball, and is not re-established until he has obivous possession.

So by bobbling the ball, he forces the ref to make a judgement call on WHEN he regains full possession.

This is why the two feet down part is important.

I really don't know how much simpler I can make this?

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is where you don't understand the rule. The initial touch means NOTHING because its not POSSESSION. Also, your video clearly shows that at the :49 second mark, Faulk's right foot is on the ground when Bullitt hits him.. And Faulk has possession. That's forward progress. Had Faulk bobbled the ball AFTER that, then, you'd be correct and forward progress would be nullified.

 

[upstater1]

I feel like I'm in crazy town.

You get forward progress only when you have control. Ok? It's simple.

So if Faulk had've held on to the ball cleanly, there would be no question because the ref would give him foreward progress right then and there.

But he doesn't, he bobbles it. Which means forward progress does not come into effect again until he has complete control.

The question is WHEN he had complete control. K? And THAT is determined by when he regains control of the ball with BOTH feet down.

Get it?

The rule is very clear and I posted it for all to read. Faulk's forward progress on his initial touch is nullified the SECOND he bobbles the ball, and is not re-established until he has obivous possession.

So by bobbling the ball, he forces the ref to make a judgement call on WHEN he regains full possession.

This is why the two feet down part is important.

I really don't know how much simpler I can make this?

You still don't know the rule.

Two feet down has NOTHING to do with when he regains full possession.

NOTHING.

What's happening here is that you made an incorrect statement earlier in your pissing match with DaBruinz and now you're totally unwilling to admit you were in error, so you're parsing your statement.

A player who bobbles the ball can be carried all the way back to the goalline and the refs should mark it where he got possession.

It has nothing to do with his feet.

Once again: did you see the close-up replay on NBC that wasn't shown in the clips you're linking to?

 

[FootballFan85]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is where you don't understand the rule. The initial touch means NOTHING because its not POSSESSION. Also, your video clearly shows that at the :49 second mark, Faulk's right foot is on the ground when Bullitt hits him.. And Faulk has possession. That's forward progress. Had Faulk bobbled the ball AFTER that, then, you'd be correct and forward progress would be nullified.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying and it's causing problems.

I'm not saying Faulk had possession on the first touch. I'm saying that because he didnt is exactly the reason why you cant count that spot as forward progress, and you have to then judge when he DID have possession, which is a judgement call up to the refs on the field, and one that they may have missed, but not by a lot.

Again, I repeat. If Faulk couldve just caught the ball cleanly on that first touch, the game wouldve been over and this would not be a discussion. But because he bobbled it, and very close to the first down line at that, he forced the refs to try and determine WHEN he regained full possession, which has to take into account him controlling the ball with his hands, and having both feed on the ground. He had one foot up during his regaining the ball, and then was hit by Bullitt.

Again, Im not saying he didnt get the 1st, I think he probably did. But when you take all this into account, it is not hard to see how the official on the field could make a mistake and again, this spot was not some huge travesty as many are making it out to be.

It was a close play, at a key time, and unfortunately, the Pats had no way to review it due to some strange time out calls on 1st and 2nd downs.

 

[FootballFan85]

You still don't know the rule.

Two feet down has NOTHING to do with when he regains full possession.

NOTHING.

What's happening here is that you made an incorrect statement earlier in your pissing match with DaBruinz and now you're totally unwilling to admit you were in error, so you're parsing your statement.

A player who bobbles the ball can be carried all the way back to the goalline and the refs should mark it where he got possession.

It has nothing to do with his feet.

Once again: did you see the close-up replay on NBC that wasn't shown in the clips you're linking to?

Yes, WHERE HE GOT POSSESSION. This is the point. You don't HAVE possession until you meet all the criteria in the rule. Faulk did NOT meet all those criteria on his initial touch, and so you can't use that spot as forward progress, you have to use where he DID gain possession, which is HIGHLY debatable, and especially difficult to gauge for the refs on the field!

And two feet definitely has everything to do with when a player is considered to have made a catch. Read the rule. Its not debatable. You have to control the ball with your hands and get both feet, or another part of your body down. How can you argue that feet down has nothing to do with possession when its clearly stated in the NFL rule book that it does????

Amazing.