The Snow Bowl

[Triumph]

Of course, Raider people are still whining about a call that was ruled correctly.

 

[italian pat patriot]

One of the best game ever...

Grazie Adam Vinatieri...

 

[sb1]

Fumbled.

 

[Triumph]

He fumbled.

No

Passing arm moving forward.

 

[Triumph]

One of the best game ever...

Grazie Adam Vinatieri...

Reminisce in the clutchness of Tom Brady and Adam V.

 

[sb1]

No

Passing arm moving forward.

No, fumble. He was pulling the ball down.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Bad rule, correct call.

Raiders fans also take credit for the Patriots accomplishments by claiming they were robbed of a championship. They would have needed to beat Pittsburgh and St. Louis as big underdogs but act like they would have won since the Pats won. That’s not how it works.

 

[NashuaPats]

My response to Raiders fans still upset over that call is this...

 

[italian pat patriot]

1976 revenge too...

 

[Triumph]

No, fumble. He was pulling the ball down.

Fake news.

Like a moth to a flame you cant help yourself from bashing Brady.

 

[Triumph]

1976 revenge too...

The Raiders dont like talking about that screw job.

Pre BB, approximately every10 years the Pats had a great team 76, 85, 96. in 1964 NE went 10 - 3 - 1

 

[signbabybrady]

No, fumble. He was pulling the ball down.

You are correct he was pulling it down. At the time the rule stated it's still considered a forward throw until you've fully tucked it way. It was a bad rule aimed at taking away the difficult decision of a ref trying to decide if 3/4 of a throwing motion is still forward throw but 4/5ths is not. While it might have been slightly easier on the ref it created a few weird moments where clearly the motions passed the line of being a forward pass but had not yet been tucked. Correct call at the time and the rule probably is better now for having been changed.

I actually think the NFL does this too much. They write rules to try and take out judgement thinking it will create more consistency. And I'm sure things might be simpler on the ref but some things just require a little judgement and we should live with it even if it means some variance ref to ref. Catch rules would be another good example where some judgement outside of the black and white is needed.

 

[Ring 6]

No, fumble. He was pulling the ball down.

By rule, an incomplete pass. Called many times that season.

 

[PatsWSB47]

No, fumble. He was pulling the ball down.

That is the definition of the rule. You should know that. What an embarrassment.

 

[scout]

My response to Raiders fans still upset over that call is this...

View attachment 28696

Karma is a *****.

 

[Pape]

i deep fried a turkey in the foxboro stadium parking lot at that game... twas a magical evening

 

[sb1]

Fake news.

Like a moth to a flame you cant help yourself from bashing Brady.

Tom Brady when asked if it was a fumble: "Yeah. I was pulling the ball down"

Fumble. And the Pats caught a break on the call.

LOL. It's ok your idol won't be mad if you say he fumbled. I guess this Tom Brady guy was "bashing Brady" too.

 

[XLIX]

It was the correct call according to the rules of the game at the time. Anyone who says otherwise is just phenomenally ignorant.

The purpose of the rule is the League does not want referees to have to judge intent. In other words, they don’t want refs to have to decide “was the QB trying to actually pass the ball or was it just a pump fake?” So the rules defined (deliberate) forward arm motion as being a forward pass even if it was just a pump fake.

And in cases where it is a pump fake, like it was with Brady on that fateful night, the “forward motion” of the arm ends when the arm stops moving and/or the ball is “tucked” to the body.

I am not ashamed to say we got damn lucky because it was a close call. But it was also the right call.

 

[sb1]

You are correct he was pulling it down. At the time the rule stated it's still considered a forward throw until you've fully tucked it way. It was a bad rule aimed at taking away the difficult decision of a ref trying to decide if 3/4 of a throwing motion is still forward throw but 4/5ths is not. While it might have been slightly easier on the ref it created a few weird moments where clearly the motions passed the line of being a forward pass but had not yet been tucked. Correct call at the time and the rule probably is better now for having been changed.

I actually think the NFL does this too much. They write rules to try and take out judgement thinking it will create more consistency. And I'm sure things might be simpler on the ref but some things just require a little judgement and we should live with it even if it means some variance ref to ref. Catch rules would be another good example where some judgement outside of the black and white is needed.

Agreed - but the problem with this call was with the replay more than the rule. Call on the field was fumble. By rule, the burden of proof is on the replay to show decisively that Brady had NOT completed the tuck to overturn the call on the field via tuck rule. Did it decisively show that? I saw Brady with both hands on the football. So whether it did or not depends on your rooting interest

I think he fumbled - he even said he did - and the Pats caught a break. It really could have gone the other way. And that's ok. Payback for Ben Dreith, which was a way more egregious call than this was.

 

[denverpatsfan]

I was there. Great game. Stood the entire time. The energy of the crowd that day was amazing.