- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 48,633
- Reaction score
- 30,146
Warhorse said:Why is the "Tuck rule" being on the books your defense when a team brings it up about how the Patriots had the refs in their back pocket when they played the Raiders, but when the "Ty Law rule" which was on the books also but wasn't being enforced, it is considered detrimental to the rules committee, Polian and the Colts because the refs were inept at calling the game the way it was called during the regular season instead of "just letting them play."
It's hard to take some fans serious for their football insight when the double standards are given a priority due to the fact that their team was the one getting the call.
I found myself in this same predicament while arguing a point, so I looked up the facts. I found out that I was wrong and stated so.
Its hard to take uneducated Colts fans seriously when they insist on making things up to try and defend their team's lack of success in the play-offs.
1) It was NOT the "Ty Law Rule". Only people who hate the Patriots and who didn't actually read any of the goings on that happened at the league meetings prior to the 2004 season call it that.
2) The 99% of the examples used in the presentation were showing that of Miami Corners Sam Madison and Patrick Surtain. I believe that there was only 1 example shown of the Patriots and it wasn't from the Play-off game.
3) In the 2003 AFCCG, it was Roman Phifer, a LB who was the one holding Pollard on 2 plays. All the interceptions Manning threw in that game had NOTHING to do with illegal contact or pass interference.
So, you can continue to show you know nothing about the situation or you can stop being ignorant.
Also, your inept attempt to tie the situation between the Tuck Rule (a rule that was called properly) to the Point of Emphasis ( where a GM and a Coach were WHINING to the competition committee) is laughable.











