The PI call was on the contact in the endzone, not at the 5 yard line. Yes, it was a completely awful call.
Maybe people arguing about the 5 yard line contact are trying to come up with some justification for getting a flag there that their brains can accept. Surely they know that the actual call was a lousy one, so maybe they're looking for a bailout, and they're willing to pretend that the handfighting is enough of one, in order to make the victory seem more pure.
But, really, they're jousting at windmills over nothing. The wrong call was made, and it may have been the reason the Patriots won for all we know, but that still doesn't even balance out the Jets/Panthers games. We need feel no shame for being content with the outcome, even if we acknowledge that the call sucked. We'd be wanting to tar and feather Bogarts if this call had been made with the teams reversed, so we do nothing but make ourselves look as foolish as Jets fans when we pretend this was a good call because it went in the Patriots favor.
Sorry, missed your strict adherence to: the PI call was for an infraction in the EZ, there was no PI infraction in the endzone, the call was atrocious.
I simply never made that distinction (certainly not doing some denial-rationalization brain deal you suggest). For me, I saw a flag for PI, watched the video to look for PI, saw it around 6 or 7 yard line mark (from the angle of the video I saw, it didn't look like PI in the endzone to me -- though VJ Patriot's post has a link to a different angle). However, my error for not stating the ball should be at the 7 (I admit I was incorrect for that).
For me this isn't only about the letter of the rule (as I have said in multiple posts), it is about fair. Sure, it's my interpretation of fair but how else would I interpret fair? Anyway, when I see the Cleveland defender make a high likelihood of a TD become a near certainty of a no TD with a forward momentum changing tug (which is against the rules), my sense of fairness says the Patriots should be compensated with another high likelihood opportunity for a TD. However, now that you pointed it out and I made the connection, putting the ball at the 7 would have most fair (especially as the compensation provides not 1 but 4 good chances at a TD).
Other than that my sense of fairness was satisfied. Maybe you and most others sense of fairness isn't satisfied whatsoever. Oh well, that's just the fate of posting on an opinion based board. I am sure you know this as well as I, winning popularity contests for one's views/posting is not an accomplishment .
I even conceded that I didn;t see PI in the endzone (though I have not seen VJPatriots video link showing another angle of the EZ, one he says shows the contact).
I saw the call for PI and I looked for the PI. At the 6 to 7 is where I think PI happened.
because what I have seen appeared not to be PI (though I haven't watched poster VJPatriot's video link that shows another angle of the EZ, one which he says shows an infraction). However, I am not doing some brain justification thing. I have been looking at this from: There was a PI called so where is the PI. At the 6 yard line is the PI.
ou are saying the call was made for an infraction that happened in the endzone. That there was no infraction in the endzone. Ok. While VJPatriot has a link to another angle showing and a grab there too, I haven;t looked at it yet. I conceded the endzone didn't appear to be PI.
