Gostkowski's game-tying kick now erased from highlight film

[upstater1]

Seriously?

I can watch this entire game with my Gampeass subscription. People recorded this game on their televisions.

************.

We really are a fan base of whiners. When things don't go our way, this board is almost intolerable.

When the tuck rule...which was as pathetic a rule you can have..was enforced correctly, we were all over fans who ******ed and moaned about it saying 'well it was the correct call'!

This happens...an equally pathetic rule...was enforced correctly and all we can do is try and pick out conspiracies. Mike Pereira backed this rule the minute it was called and I tend to trust his judgement. He isn't the type to defend a referee wrongly and will happily state when one of his former colleagues is wrong or he doesn't agree with the call.

We weren't screwed. You all loved the tuck rule when it went in our favour so stop being hypocrites when something doesn't go our way.

I also HATE the constant *****ing at referees. They do a job I wouldn't want to do for the criticism, moaning and hate you get for trying your best.

They're HUMAN. Next time you make a mistake at work, people would do well to think about that.

It was there, then they took it out. They scrubbed the website. Go on in blissful ignorance. Reporters are noting these things, by the way. Why scrub the website?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

For the record, the clip of the kick itself is still there (needless to say, I'm sure a lot more people just watch the highlights).

 

[shmessy]

It was there, then they took it out. They scrubbed the website. Go on in blissful ignorance. Reporters are noting these things, by the way. Why scrub the website?

Exactly. UK_Pat37 is off on some different argument for whatever reason.

The subject is why did the NFL scrub its website after the game? Why did they change the internet wording of the rule after the game and ELIMINATE the Coples highlight when it had been in there previously? Evidently, UK-Pat37 thinks that is mere coincidence.

I'd like to see UK-Pat37 actually stay on subject and answer that one instead of going off on a side strawman argument about the veracity of the rule. If the NFL official website was confused - - and it was not called earlier in the game (or EVER BEFORE) for that matter, then there is something wrong there for it to be freshly unveiled for the first time on an overtime game deciding kick.

It is what it is. The NFL cannot sweep their postgame action under the rug (as much as UK_Pat37 evidently wants them to be able to do). There should be a statement and explanation admitting that they in fact DID change the wording on their website after the game.

 

[50-yard-line]

The Coples push was far less egregious than the Pats one at the end of the game. But even if it was the same play what does it change. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a penalty.

Obviously as a Jets fan Im biased but I dont think the penalty being called is the problem. The problem is that its a 15 yard penalty. I think it should be a penalty as do a lot of coaches and players who have been lobbied for this rule change. It should be a 5 yard penalty. 15 is just silly.

Don't let this (valid) screaming detract from your joy at the win. You guys deserved it.

I'm one of those folks who HATE when refs interfere in such a way. I remember a game many years ago, before instant replay and challenges, when the Jets got absolutely hosed on a third down catch by Wayne Chrebet. He had the first down easily - a drive that would have won the game - and the refs walked it back, way back, and gave the game away (I think it was against Miami).

I wanted the Jets to lose that game so badly! But that call just sucked - left a sour taste in my mouth.

You don't call a penalty like this for the first time ever in an overtime divisional game on a 56-yard FG attempt. Well, unless you want to make sure everyone thereafter knows the rule.

And the fact that BB and many others didn't even know the actual rule says a lot about how bad the NFL botched this one.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Exactly. UK_Pat37 is off on some different argument for whatever reason.

The subject is why did the NFL scrub its website after the game? Why did they change the internet wording of the rule after the game and ELIMINATE the Coples highlight when it had been in there previously? Evidently, UK-Pat37 thinks that is mere coincidence.

I'd like to see UK-Pat37 actually stay on subject and answer that one instead of going off on a side strawman argument about the veracity of the rule. If the NFL official website was confused - - and it was not called earlier in the game (or EVER BEFORE) for that matter, then there is something wrong there for it to be freshly unveiled for the first time on an overtime game deciding kick.

It is what it is. The NFL cannot sweep their postgame action under the rug (as much as UK_Pat37 evidently wants them to be able to do). There should be a statement and explanation admitting that they in fact DID change the wording on their website after the game.

I'll answer you quite happily

The rule book was actually never changed. Tom Curren use a screen shot of an NFL ARTICLE which was written about the new rule. That article misquoted the rule.

Here is the article in question:

New NFL rules: Overloading line restriction will protect linemen - NFL.com

The rule book itself has always stated:

(b) When Team A presents a field-goal or Try Kick formation:

(2) Team B players cannot push team mates on the line of scrimmage into the offensive formation.

Note that the wording is completely different but the sources of the two wordings are entirely different. One is an article written by a journalist who has clearly misquoted what the rule was. The article was edited after the game to ensure that it was correct.

Shock horror....it's not like anyone has never edited an article after it was published because it later emerged someone had been misquoted or a key fact had come out to be incorrect.

This article, when people searched for the new push rule, was the number one result which came from google. This was the first thing people read, not the rule book, and when it was edited this was immediately picked up on.

Here's Tom Curran's screen shot:

https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/392066713228816384

Get over it people.

THEY EDITED THE ARTICLE...NOT THE RULE BOOK.

Way to make a whole lot out of nothing

 

[Froob]

Speaking of Gost, what a hell of a season he's had. I'll be shocked if he isn't selected (notice my wording) to the pro bowl. Glad BB stuck with him. Loved when the announcers were mentioning before OT how Gost better have a good kickoff here to prevent Cribbs from returning this one and then Gost kicks the ball practically into the crowd.

 

[Kontradiction]

Speaking of Gost, what a hell of a season he's had. I'll be shocked if he isn't selected (notice my wording) to the pro bowl. Glad BB stuck with him. Loved when the announcers were mentioning before OT how Gost better have a good kickoff here to prevent Cribbs from returning this one and then Gost kicks the ball practically into the crowd.

He's had an excellent season thus far. Whatever he was going through, mentally, in 2012 is gone and he's been the kicker that we all remember.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

You all loved the tuck rule when it went in our favour so stop being hypocrites when something doesn't go our way.

I know of nobody on Earth, Patriots fan or not, who loved the tuck rule.

Fortunately such a bad rule was not ignored by refs on that snowy day.

But it was an embarrassing rule that reared its ugly head 12-15 times per year for 14 years (Mike Pereira's estimate), until it was rightfully erased.

 

[upstater1]

I know of nobody on Earth, Patriots fan or not, who loved the tuck rule.

Fortunately such a bad rule was not ignored by refs on that snowy day.

But it was an embarrassing rule that reared its ugly head 12-15 times per year for 14 years (Mike Pereira's estimate), until it was rightfully erased.

And the difference between the tuck rule and this call was that a tuck could be called on only one play every 20 games or so.

In this case, the penalty could be called multiple times each and every game (since you're forbidden from lining up even with the snapper's shoulders).

 

[upstater1]

One thing to add: I can't wait until the day an upback snags the ball on a fake and runs right through the gap in front of the snapper for a big first down.

 

[VinnyPatrollie]

The Coples push was far less egregious than the Pats one at the end of the game. But even if it was the same play what does it change. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a penalty.

Obviously as a Jets fan Im biased but I dont think the penalty being called is the problem. The problem is that its a 15 yard penalty. I think it should be a penalty as do a lot of coaches and players who have been lobbied for this rule change. It should be a 5 yard penalty. 15 is just silly.

You've got a LOT of nerve sticking your slimy face in over here, both of them actually, you two faced bastard. You're one of the worst of all the chest thumping, mouth breathers, over on JI. Go back to your ignorant and arrogant brethren who all know ***** about the game of football and enjoy your biggest win in 3 years there. Say hi to Rah Rah, Child Please , jetssjumets, and the rest of your moronic butt-buddies. Go away scum troll. No one cares what you think.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I'll answer you quite happily

The rule book was actually never changed. Tom Curren use a screen shot of an NFL ARTICLE which was written about the new rule. That article misquoted the rule.

Here is the article in question:

New NFL rules: Overloading line restriction will protect linemen - NFL.com

The rule book itself has always stated:

(b) When Team A presents a field-goal or Try Kick formation:

(2) Team B players cannot push team mates on the line of scrimmage into the offensive formation.

Bingo!

That said, a more intellectually-honest approach would have been to have corrected the article as they did, but put an Editor's Note/Corrections Note on it saying what was changed and why.

 

[flasox27]

After seven weeks of the season and hundreds of placements, the NFL saw no reason to change its description of how the rule applied even though there numerous unpenalized violations. Within minutes of the end of the Pats game, after BB brought up the interpretation in the NFL site, it was altered. Is this a mere coincidence or another effort to cover up the incompetence of referee who somehow neglected to call the penalty on the Jets first. Either the rule applies or it doesn't. You don't call it on one team and not the other especially when it decides the game.

 

[upstater1]

After seven weeks of the season and hundreds of placements, the NFL saw no reason to change its description of how the rule applied even though there numerous unpenalized violations. Within minutes of the end of the Pats game, after BB brought up the interpretation in the NFL site, it was altered. Is this a mere coincidence or another effort to cover up the incompetence of referee who somehow neglected to call the penalty on the Jets first. Either the rule applies or it doesn't. You don't call it on one team and not the other especially when it decides the game.

I've sounded like a broken drum when I've replied to both SB39 and RLcarr on this, but the fact is, this rule is repeatedly violated in other ways. You can't lineup on the snapper's shoulder pads, for instance. The Jets did it multiple times. So did the Patriots.

Seriously, how can you call a penalty that's been violated multiple times during the game with no call? How can you call it there? Never mind the multiple violations over the season.

 

[crypto]

clearly the nfl vid guys went out of their way to scrub a critical moment in the game (which incidentally included a non-call on what would have been a 15-yard penalty against the winning team) from the nfl.com highlights video in order to bamboozle pats fans into accusing other pats fans of whining (and not because there is an ongoing controversy over the fact that the same 15-yard penalty was called against the losing team)

 

[UK_Pat37]

Bingo!

That said, a more intellectually-honest approach would have been to have corrected the article as they did, but put an Editor's Note/Corrections Note on it saying what was changed and why.

Kinda made this whole thread redundant!