Deion Sanders and Mariucci say Faulk got the first down!

[upstater1]

You just can't tell from that picture because of the angle. That angle is deceptive. It's not clear at all in my opinion. It's way too close for anyone to say this was clear one way or the other

Who needs a picture. There's the motion replay on Youtube that shows Faulk securing the ball just before his foot lands on the 30 yard line.

The angle doesn't make a difference since his back is parallel to the sideline, and that means his body was north of the 30 yard line where his foot touched. It would be physically impossible for the ball in the middle of his chest to be south (or further left) of his left foot on the 30.

 

[O'Doyle Rules!]

Watch that video again and focus on the ref in the 2nd camera angle. Why is he not even ATTEMPTING to watch the play?

Ridiculous...

 

[upstater1]

He may have made it, but it's too close for comfort. It never would've been overturned and I can't blame the guy that made the call. Lots of things to be pissed about, but this aint one of em. Faulk needs to either (a) push his route a half yard up, or (b) catch the ball cleanly. He does either one of those things and we don't have to rely on the refs.

How can you not blame a guy who assumes the player doesn't have control of the ball when he does? Why would he assume that? If he couldn't see it, he shouldn't assume that.

As for a), Brady and Faulk commented that they practiced that play hundreds of times, it's a timing play. Used to use it with Troy Brown all the time. If Faulk changes the route, it's an incompletion.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Has anyone mentioned the blatent hold on Burgess in plain sight of the refs that happened on the same play of the BS PI call on Butler.

 

[stattry]

Who needs a picture. There's the motion replay on Youtube that shows Faulk securing the ball just before his foot lands on the 30 yard line.

The angle doesn't make a difference since his back is parallel to the sideline, and that means his body was north of the 30 yard line where his foot touched. It would be physically impossible for the ball in the middle of his chest to be south (or further left) of his left foot on the 30.

Don't see where his back is parallel in any way to the sideline in that screen capture; I'd live to see some kind of advanced triangulation from the different angles if that could be done. My gut is it probably was a first down; but it's so hard to tell even in super slo-mo; can't imagine how difficult that must have been for a ref even in real time

 

[upstater1]

Don't see where his back is parallel in any way to the sideline in that screen capture; I'd live to see some kind of advanced triangulation from the different angles if that could be done. My gut is it probably was a first down; but it's so hard to tell even in super slo-mo; can't imagine how difficult that must have been for a ref even in real time

Huh? You can't tell that his back is parallel with the sideline? You can't be serious. The guy is totally parallel.

 

[rdrr]

You just can't tell from that picture because of the angle. That angle is deceptive. It's not clear at all in my opinion. It's way too close for anyone to say this was clear one way or the other

The Side Judge signaled the catch at the thirty. Then takes a step in and walks at an angle to mark the placement. You can clearly see it on the video NFL Videos: NFL GameDay: Patriots vs. Colts highlights at the 5:20 mark.

He signals the catch at the 30.

 

[da50driver]

I remember watching the replay by NBC and as far as I could tell Faulk had a pretty good grasp on the ball.

The bigger question is how could these refs not get together and confer on a play of this magnitude. This ref had absolutely no business trying to make a "bobbling" call when he couldn't even see the ball. Almost as bad as the call they made in the Packers-Cowboys game regarding the fumble that clearly wasn't and was recovered by Green Bay. The refs gave some excuse on why the play wasn't even reviewable. Both announcers were like "huh?"

But another point, the Pats left a minimum of 10 points on the table. The fumble into the endzone (I feel confident that would have been 7) and the interception by Bethea (field goal range but the momentum Pats had, 7 was a possibility). You cannot leave points like that against any team.

I just hope the didn't shaft themselves out of a first round bye.

 

[stattry]

Huh? You can't tell that his back is parallel with the sideline? You can't be serious. The guy is totally parallel.

I don't know - it looks to me like his left shoulder is closer to the sidelines than his right shoulder

 

[upstater1]

I don't know - it looks to me like his left shoulder is closer to the sidelines than his right shoulder

He was getting pushed back straight into the ground. Can't see how you make that statement. I looked at it again and saw the same thing. His back is to the sideline.

 

[DW Toys]

The rulebook on the "Call"

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

A: He caught the ball, and bobbled it in the air.

B: Ergo, no part of his body touched the ground after the bobble UNTIL
he hit the ground on that side of the 4th down marker

C: Its a catch, but, you only get the yards from a bobble where you contact the ground after possession is re-established

D: Hence Turnover on Downs

Nice try. Not even close. That play is not a first down only in Indianapolis, not the rest of the world. An asterisk on that win.
DW Toys
P.S #79 Raheem Brock lined up off-sides in the neutral zone. Look at trhe video. The ball was at the 28.5 yard line. Kopen tilts it back to snap it and #79 is illegal. Brock's set hand is definable off-sides. And as for you Mr. Rule Book-As per the NFL:Neutral Zone: The space the length of a ball between the two scrimmage lines. The offensive team and defensive team must remain behind their end of the ball.
Exception: The offensive player who snaps the ball.

i.e. First down NE, Neutral Zone infraction.

You Polian influenced Ref can see a ball through a players body to see a catch, but can't look down the line of scrimmage? ....Nice! Double asterisk!

The double edged Polian "Gotcha"

 

[Pats726]

Nice try. Not even close. That play is not a first down only in Indianapolis, not the rest of the world. An asterisk on that win.
DW Toys
P.S #79 Raheem Brock lined up off-sides in the neutral zone. Look at trhe video. The ball was at the 28.5 yard line. Kopen tilts it back to snap it and #79 is illegal. Brock's set hand is definable off-sides. And as for you Mr. Rule Book-As per the NFL:Neutral Zone: The space the length of a ball between the two scrimmage lines. The offensive team and defensive team must remain behind their end of the ball.
Exception: The offensive player who snaps the ball.

i.e. First down NE, Neutral Zone infraction.

You Polian influenced Ref can see a ball through a players body to see a catch, but can't look down the line of scrimmage? ....Nice! Double asterisk!

The double edged Polian "Gotcha"

NYou are right...it's not close...if one looks at the replay, he caught teh ball, bobbled it and when that happened, his feet were planted on the ground...ON the OTHER side of the 30...ERGO FIRST DOWN!!! The officials totally botched it and did not even TRY to get it correct.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Agreed! Faulk did make the 1st down. The Patriots also got screwed on the annual 4th quarter phantom pass interference call. Every year that happens and it always goes Indys way. Call it the PoliOn effect.