Official Pats/Colts Postgame thread

[upstater1]

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.

Players or Coach O'Brien weren't prepared. I agree.

As for the last point, I disagree. If it's the biggest decision of the game (and/or season) and you don't call a timeout there, you are nuts.

Imagine if Belichick hadn't called a timeout there AND the play had failed.

What do you think would be the uproar this morning?

 

[upstater1]

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.

The closeup replay from last night showed he had clear possession.

Case closed.

 

[upstater1]

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.

Because forward progress makes any discussion of getting feet down totally moot. You tell me, if Faulk had been carried into the end zone by the defender, you're saying the refs would mark the ball at the 1?

Also, you keep ignoring the question: did you see the close-up replay of the catch?

 

[FootballFan85]

LMAO!!!!

A play that has people debating all around the league. I've showed you stills, videos, the rule book, etc to demonstrate why it was a close call.

And a Pats fan on a Pats board says some phantom replay he hasn't produced shows it was CLEARLY a first down. Case closed.

Fantastic and hilarious.

If it's so clear, pull up the replay and show it!

That is if the NFL didn't destroy the footage to cover up the scandal!


LMAO.

Anyways, Im going to get fired if I dont do some actual work. Ill check back in later to read the rest of the ridiculous homer talk.

 

[FootballFan85]

Because forward progress makes any discussion of getting feet down totally moot. You tell me, if Faulk had been carried into the end zone by the defender, you're saying the refs would mark the ball at the 1?

Also, you keep ignoring the question: did you see the close-up replay of the catch?

No it is not moot because forward progress can ONLY BE ESTABLISHED when the feet are down and the possession has been established.

If he gets his feet down and THEN gets carried back, youre exactly right. If he only gets ONE foot down and then is carried back, then, by the rules, you're wrong.

 

[JFK]

I think they over prepared and were thinking too hard.

 

[Betterthanmost]

Why do we always have problems stopping Addai? I think he caused the most damage.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

It wasn't a close play.. That's just it. As has been pointed out and you ignored, the Side Judge on the near side is the one who claimed that Faulk didn't have possession prior to being hit by Bullitt. It was the hit by Bullitt that knocked him back. Yet, that Side Judge had no clear view on when possession occurred. The Far Side Judge, had marked it off as a 1st down because he DID see when possession occurred. Yet he was over-ruled by the Ref and the near Side Judge. Which was WRONG.

Also, First touch does NOT negate the forward progress rule. First POSSESSION negates it. Faulk's right foot was on the ground when he had possession and then his left touched after he was hit and knocked back by Bullitt.. It's still forward progress though. This is the part you are tripping over..

 

[upstater1]

LMAO!!!!

A play that has people debating all around the league. I've showed you stills, videos, the rule book, etc to demonstrate why it was a close call.

And a Pats fan on a Pats board says some phantom replay he hasn't produced shows it was CLEARLY a first down. Case closed.

Fantastic and hilarious.

If it's so clear, pull up the replay and show it!

That is if the NFL didn't destroy the footage to cover up the scandal!


LMAO.

Anyways, Im going to get fired if I dont do some actual work. Ill check back in later to read the rest of the ridiculous homer talk.

Phantom replay?

So you didn't watch the game?

Anyone here can vouch that there was a closeup replay for people who actually watched the game (and you clearly didn't).

It's also the first time on this board that someone with a memory of the game has been asked to search the NFL archives.

Your reading of the rulebook is not the only thing that's totally embarassing and pathetic.

Watch the game next time. It's clear you didn't. All fans here know that the replay was shown in closeup.

 

[DaBruinz]

No it is not moot because forward progress can ONLY BE ESTABLISHED when the feet are down and the possession has been established.

If he gets his feet down and THEN gets carried back, youre exactly right. If he only gets ONE foot down and then is carried back, then, by the rules, you're wrong.

Not true at all. A receiver who Catches the ball while in the air is given forward progress if he's hit and knocked backwards prior to both feet hitting the ground. We see it ALL the time in games. That's the whole point for Forward Progress.

 

[upstater1]

No it is not moot because forward progress can ONLY BE ESTABLISHED when the feet are down and the possession has been established.

If he gets his feet down and THEN gets carried back, youre exactly right. If he only gets ONE foot down and then is carried back, then, by the rules, you're wrong.

So, let me get this straight, a player makes a catch at the 50 and he's carried back without putting his feet down, and the refs mark it when he's actually down, even if that's 10 yards downfield?

ROFLMAO!!!

 

[bakes781]

Players or Coach O'Brien weren't prepared. I agree.

As for the last point, I disagree. If it's the biggest decision of the game (and/or season) and you don't call a timeout there, you are nuts.

Imagine if Belichick hadn't called a timeout there AND the play had failed.

What do you think would be the uproar this morning?

Had O'Brien/Brady known BB intended to go for it on 4th down there's no way they call that play on 3rd & 2. They would've ran the ball or something a lot more conservative to keep the clock rolling. Thus forcing Indy to use a TO or having it hit the 2 minute warning. Instead they almost throw a pick 6 the other way.

 

[mayoclinic]

Had O'Brien/Brady known BB intended to go for it on 4th down there's no way they call that play on 3rd & 2. They would've ran the ball or something a lot more conservative to keep the clock rolling. Instead they almost throw a pick 6 the other way.

3rd and 2 was a perfect spot to run the Pistol with Stanbeck and Brady.

 

[DaBruinz]

LMAO!!!!

A play that has people debating all around the league. I've showed you stills, videos, the rule book, etc to demonstrate why it was a close call.

And a Pats fan on a Pats board says some phantom replay he hasn't produced shows it was CLEARLY a first down. Case closed.

Listen, Jagoff. Just because you're clueless doesn't me we Patsfans are. You're understanding of the Rule Book is marginal at best.

As for the replay, I'm sorry that they only showed the particular replay ONCE. I've I'd known you'd be an abject imbecile about it, I'd have made sure to write the NFLN and demand that they put it on NFL.COM.

Fantastic and hilarious.

If it's so clear, pull up the replay and show it!

That is if the NFL didn't destroy the footage to cover up the scandal!

How can one pull up something one doesn't have?

LMAO.

Anyways, Im going to get fired if I dont do some actual work. Ill check back in later to read the rest of the ridiculous homer talk.

The only thing that is ridiculous is your lack of understanding of the rulebook and reality.

 

[falloutboy14]

The ball first hits his hands at the 30 & 2/3rds yard line, just shy of the 31. He catches it very shortly after-wards. He's still upright when he secures the ball. Once he catches the ball, his left foot is on the ground, his right is up in the air. From this point forward, he controls the ball entirely, no more bobbling. At this point, Bullitt is pushing him back. His right foot first touches the ground just past the 30 yard line.

At this point, it's a catch, there's contact with a defender, and a matter of where the ball is when his right foot touches the ground. I don't have a great angle of it from Tivo, but I don't think it's far-fetched to say it's very close. His left shoulder appears to be short of the 30, the ball is basically mid-chest from catch till he falls to the ground. It could have gone either way & it would have been too close that the booth would have a near-impossible time changing it under review.

 

[Deus Irae]

The ball first hits his hands at the 30 & 2/3rds yard line, just shy of the 31. He catches it very shortly after-wards. He's still upright when he secures the ball. Once he catches the ball, his left foot is on the ground, his right is up in the air. From this point forward, he controls the ball entirely, no more bobbling. At this point, Bullitt is pushing him back. His right foot first touches the ground just past the 30 yard line.

At this point, it's a catch, there's contact with a defender, and a matter of where the ball is when his right foot touches the ground. I don't have a great angle of it from Tivo, but I don't think it's far-fetched to say it's very close. His left shoulder appears to be short of the 30, the ball is basically mid-chest from catch till he falls to the ground. It could have gone either way & it would have been too close that the booth would have a near-impossible time changing it under review.

Come on, now. It's an easy spot, and it's a first down. The official screwed the pooch. It's alright to admit that. The game's over and admitting the truth isn't going to change the "W" to an "L". Just ask the Chargers.

 

[upstater1]

The ball first hits his hands at the 30 & 2/3rds yard line, just shy of the 31. He catches it very shortly after-wards. He's still upright when he secures the ball. Once he catches the ball, his left foot is on the ground, his right is up in the air. From this point forward, he controls the ball entirely, no more bobbling. At this point, Bullitt is pushing him back. His right foot first touches the ground just past the 30 yard line.

At this point, it's a catch, there's contact with a defender, and a matter of where the ball is when his right foot touches the ground. I don't have a great angle of it from Tivo, but I don't think it's far-fetched to say it's very close. His left shoulder appears to be short of the 30, the ball is basically mid-chest from catch till he falls to the ground. It could have gone either way & it would have been too close that the booth would have a near-impossible time changing it under review.

I agree with all of that.

The booth would be in charge with ending the game if they went against the call on he field. Doubt it would happen for that reason alone.

 

[upstater1]

Get your phantom replay here. Phantom replay.

YouTube - patsscrewed

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

lol Bill Belichick is the #1 popular search on yahoo right now. And I'm guessing it's not for images

 

[PatsFanInVa]

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