boltuprite Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 I'd go a step further, SD. I would like to see NE lose a big playoff game....by a crappy call. 821049[/snapback] you must have missed the Broncos/Patriots playoff game last year then. The Pats got hosed big time by the refs.
truth on hold Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 it all started way back with the "tuck rule" that got them into their first super bowl. if not for that call who knows maybe this team doesn't get on a roll like they did. and the officiating has been eerily in their favor ever since. just this season we saw it last night every time vikes were on the verge of making a game of it. and even whitner questioned the INT returned for a TD that was called back and would have lead to a bills victory in the game opener. you tell me how the pats who were outplayed that game never committed a penalty other than too many men on the field? something's not right and methinks kraft is pulling some strings behind the scenes when its not there? Must admit only watched the first half last night. First Moe williams gets tackled by ST Teddy on the first Johnson pick near the goaline, and no call even though side judge about 4 yds away, with no in front of him. Chuckleheads on the TV can only talk bout what a bad decsion by Brad Johnson, but he threw to the spot where Williams would have been if he was NOT TACKled during his route. Turnover! Next series for the Vikes, first down throw to one of the Vikes recievers, offensive interference. Could sworn it Eric Moulds getting called all over again. All the boys on TV said was looked "questionable". Think next pass TURNOVER Next Viking series, long sideline throw and looks like the Vikes reciever doesn't make a play for the ball. Boys on TV ripping him for playing "for the interference call". Ahh, but on the replay, we clearly see Samuel never looks for the ball, grabs the recievers right inside arm and prevents him from attempting to catch the ball. I am not one who believes in ref bias, or conspiracies, but is it me or or things really out of whack with this NE squad 820995[/snapback]
Bungee Jumper Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 I'd go a step further, SD. I would like to see NE lose a big playoff game....by a crappy call. 821049[/snapback] Preferably by the tuck rule.
ILoveTomBrady Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 One just has to look at the 1st meeting between the bills & NE. Whitner picks off the ball, clements is called for a phanton push in the back in which he was literally just trying to protect himself & what is even worse is the ref somehow called whitner out of bounds when he didnt come 3 yards of the line. If there wasnt a penalty called on that, we would of been screwed out of a game winning td. Also, in that game the chinsy call of block in the back on Royal, barely even put his hands on him. Both calls were at critical points of the game.821076[/snapback] How about the first play of the game, when Brady fumbled? There was a facemask that wasn't called (a 15 yarder imo). rather than Buffalo leading 7-0 it should have been Pats with a 1st down and 15 yards.
ILoveTomBrady Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Preferably by the tuck rule. 821157[/snapback] the tuck rule was called against the Pats earlier in '01. crappy rule but the right call.
plenzmd1 Posted October 31, 2006 Author Posted October 31, 2006 the tuck rule was called against the Pats earlier in '01. crappy rule but the right call. 821172[/snapback] agreed on the tuck rule, right call, but still fuming that friggen rule cost me money!!! Can a Pats fan really say they do not believe they get benefit of some "quirky" ref calls. Guess my complaint is not so much that the calls are "wrong" but that they always seem to go in the Pats favor. Again, I do not watch all the Pats games, but think back to last year and the Moulds call on a crtical third conversion, then last nights Offensive interference on another third down conversion, and something just doesn't smell right. But the Bruschi tackle is just to much for me to take. The ref was in perfect position to make that call, and my gut tells me cause it was the Pats(especially Teddy) it was not called. That is a HUGE non call in my mind. One cannot discount the role momentum has in a football game, witness the first Pats-Bills game this year. Instead of having first down on the two for the Vikes, it now first down for the Pats. It just gets old after a while. Again, I have nothing but admiration for what the Pats have done, and just love watching Tom Brady play. He is in my mind the best QB i have seen play, and I am 43.
boltuprite Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 in the long run, calls eventually even out
ILoveTomBrady Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 oh, there are definitely a lot of questionable calls that go the Pats way. I fully agreed on at least 2 last night that were just atrocious, the offensive PI and the wiggins catch. the problem is that calls go against all teams, so it comes down to which ones are remembered. Pats fans will not remember bad calls that went against them in games they won. who cares, we won. The losing team's fans are much more likely to remember bad calls that went against them while playing the Pats. Also, bad calls are more likely to be remembered in close games where one score could have changed the outcome. let's see, the Pats win a lot of games and win by a lot of close scores. This maximizes the possibility of opposing fans remembering bad calls. also, i think a lot goes down to the nature of football. So many plays can be crucial, or viewed as potentially crucial. lets say it's an everyday 3rd down in the 2nd quarter. team gets stopped and is forced to punt. no big deal. what if on the play the refs missed an obvious penalty and the team should have gotten a 1st down. Now fans can look at that missed call as being a big deal, because the team COULD have driven for a score had they been given the chance. Or, conversely, a 1st down is negated by a holding call and the team is forced to punt. the fans will swear that if not for the holding call the team would have definitely scored. both of the horrible calls last night, the offensive PI and wiggins catch/non-catch fall into this category. neither involved change of possession or scoring plays. had neither been called, the vikings would simply have had a chance to continue driving, and based on how the NE defense manhandled Minnesota it is much more likey the drives would have ended prematurely anyway. i can keep throwing out examples: there is a kickoff that is returned to midfield, but a crummy illegal block call brings it back all the way to the 15. fans for the return team are screaming that the refs screwed them out of points, when in reality there is a good chance the team stalls at midfield and is forced to punt. it is 1st and 10, a bad pass interference is called on the defense giving the offense 15 yards. the offense still would have had 2 downs to get 10 yards but that gets forgotten. this all leads to a lot of speculation, and most of it is done out of frustration which combines with a natural bias to form a less natural, stronger bias. so basically my point is: bad calls go against everyone, you just remember the bad ones when you play the pats because you lost and the games are close. also, the nature of football is that at any time a game-changing play can occur which causes us to treat every bad call as crucial.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 oh, there are definitely a lot of questionable calls that go the Pats way. I fully agreed on at least 2 last night that were just atrocious, the offensive PI and the wiggins catch. the problem is that calls go against all teams, so it comes down to which ones are remembered. Pats fans will not remember bad calls that went against them in games they won. who cares, we won. The losing team's fans are much more likely to remember bad calls that went against them while playing the Pats. Also, bad calls are more likely to be remembered in close games where one score could have changed the outcome. let's see, the Pats win a lot of games and win by a lot of close scores. This maximizes the possibility of opposing fans remembering bad calls. also, i think a lot goes down to the nature of football. So many plays can be crucial, or viewed as potentially crucial. lets say it's an everyday 3rd down in the 2nd quarter. team gets stopped and is forced to punt. no big deal. what if on the play the refs missed an obvious penalty and the team should have gotten a 1st down. Now fans can look at that missed call as being a big deal, because the team COULD have driven for a score had they been given the chance. Or, conversely, a 1st down is negated by a holding call and the team is forced to punt. the fans will swear that if not for the holding call the team would have definitely scored. both of the horrible calls last night, the offensive PI and wiggins catch/non-catch fall into this category. neither involved change of possession or scoring plays. had neither been called, the vikings would simply have had a chance to continue driving, and based on how the NE defense manhandled Minnesota it is much more likey the drives would have ended prematurely anyway. i can keep throwing out examples: there is a kickoff that is returned to midfield, but a crummy illegal block call brings it back all the way to the 15. fans for the return team are screaming that the refs screwed them out of points, when in reality there is a good chance the team stalls at midfield and is forced to punt. it is 1st and 10, a bad pass interference is called on the defense giving the offense 15 yards. the offense still would have had 2 downs to get 10 yards but that gets forgotten. this all leads to a lot of speculation, and most of it is done out of frustration which combines with a natural bias to form a less natural, stronger bias. so basically my point is: bad calls go against everyone, you just remember the bad ones when you play the pats because you lost and the games are close. also, the nature of football is that at any time a game-changing play can occur which causes us to treat every bad call as crucial. 821231[/snapback] good teams with good reputations get called for less penalties. it happens to be the pats in the hopper right now, but that's life. one glaring instance came when corey dillon chucked the ball 20 yards or so after a play. flag thrown? no, instead, the ref waddles over like some lowly submissive in a bad s&m porn movie, humbly picks up the ball and dutifully walks it back to the line. factor in there a couple bad calls, and a couple non-calls, mostly falling the way of the pats, and conspiracy theories abound. if i could summarize---the deal we probably all agree on is that you culd find a holding and/or interference call on every play. it gets ugly when they call the nitpicky stuff one way, and let it go the other. it happened again last night. it'll happen again. maybe in my lifetime the calls will go the bills way again, although i'm 45 and my biological clock is a'tickin.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Maybe you just notice the calls more because the Patriots are good enough to take advantage of them. The Bills get a call to go their way and then follow that up with Willis into the line for 1 yard and then two straight sacks. Seriously, the Pats are pretty damn good, and I hate them as much as the next guy. How many teams can go into a road game on Monday Night Football with two powerful RB's and worthless WR's, and say "Hey, the Vikes have a pretty good run defense. I think we'll air it out tonight." Brady proceeds to throw for 370yds and 4TD's. Much respect. It's October and the division is wrapped up, and that has very little to do with the refs. 821044[/snapback] You were smokin a little too much last night if you dont think that at least 4 of the calls were insane ... especially the "incomplete" call. It couldnt have been anymore clear.
Fezmid Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 it all started way back with the "tuck rule" that got them into their first super bowl. I thought it started with the "Just give it to 'em!" game.
Pirate Angel Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Didnt you know that officiating now determines the outcome of the game, Just look at last years Superbowl
Steven in MD Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 I am here in Boston on business. I had a lunch time discussion about the Pats, most Pats fans believe that the Pats do not get enough calls. That the league has an in for them...I had a great laugh....told them that Belichek has a deal with the devil
smokinandjokin Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 You were smokin a little too much last night if you dont think that at least 4 of the calls were insane ... especially the "incomplete" call. It couldnt have been anymore clear. 821326[/snapback] I saw the calls. The two VERY bad ones were the fumble OB that was ruled incomplete, and a weak offensive pass interference called on the Vikings. Other than that, it was the same b.s. you see in every single game, every single week. So, should we just record the score as 21-13 Patriots, instead of 31-7? Calls or no calls, New England outclassed Minnesota last night. That couldn't have been anymore clear.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 I saw the calls. The two VERY bad ones were the fumble OB that was ruled incomplete, and a weak offensive pass interference called on the Vikings. Other than that, it was the same b.s. you see in every single game, every single week. So, should we just record the score as 21-13 Patriots, instead of 31-7? Calls or no calls, New England outclassed Minnesota last night. That couldn't have been anymore clear. 821589[/snapback] I cant believe I have to go back to basic football knowledge ... but ... their are certain turning points in games. Odds are NE still wins the game, but the Vikings were driving and had they scored they would have cut the deficit to 10 points (after being hyped about the big punt return for a TD) ... the defense had stopped Brady and Co. 3 and out the first time they had the ball in the 3rd quarter. They scored a TD only because Maroney got them to the 20 yard line with a good kickoff return. So hypothetically Minnesota scores. 24-14 Patriots winning. Then Brady and Co is stopped, Minnesota gets the ball and is on a roll from the previous 2 TD's and gets a TD or Field goal and zoom they are within 3-7 points. See what Im saying? Last game aside their have been quite a few games where the Patriots have only won by a TD or less, that they have gotten favorable calls to win them the game.
Lori Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 I thought it started with the "Just give it to 'em!" game. 821394[/snapback] Cost us a home playoff game, that did. If calls 'even out', we've been waiting EIGHT YEARS to get back for that one... grrrrrrrrr...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Cost us a home playoff game, that did. If calls 'even out', we've been waiting EIGHT YEARS to get back for that one... grrrrrrrrr... 821775[/snapback] What is the exact game you both are referring to?
ILoveTomBrady Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 I cant believe I have to go back to basic football knowledge ... but ... their are certain turning points in games. Odds are NE still wins the game, but the Vikings were driving and had they scored they would have cut the deficit to 10 points (after being hyped about the big punt return for a TD) ... the defense had stopped Brady and Co. 3 and out the first time they had the ball in the 3rd quarter. They scored a TD only because Maroney got them to the 20 yard line with a good kickoff return. So hypothetically Minnesota scores. 24-14 Patriots winning. Then Brady and Co is stopped, Minnesota gets the ball and is on a roll from the previous 2 TD's and gets a TD or Field goal and zoom they are within 3-7 points. See what Im saying? Last game aside their have been quite a few games where the Patriots have only won by a TD or less, that they have gotten favorable calls to win them the game. 821759[/snapback] Did you catch the part where NE scored at will? Did you notice that the Vikings offense didn't score a single point against the NE defense? But you're right, hypothetically if the Vikings score and if hypothetically Brady and Co. are stopped then the Vikings would have been down by only 10 with the ball and if they were able to score again and stop NE again and.... I understand the "what if" game, but not when one team dominated another. The turning point ended up being the opening drive when NE went spread and Minnesota couldn't do a thing to stop them. Minnesota went into the game knowing they didn't have a very good offense and the key would be containing NE, which they could not.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Did you catch the part where NE scored at will? Did you notice that the Vikings offense didn't score a single point against the NE defense? But you're right, hypothetically if the Vikings score and if hypothetically Brady and Co. are stopped then the Vikings would have been down by only 10 with the ball and if they were able to score again and stop NE again and.... I understand the "what if" game, but not when one team dominated another. The turning point ended up being the opening drive when NE went spread and Minnesota couldn't do a thing to stop them. Minnesota went into the game knowing they didn't have a very good offense and the key would be containing NE, which they could not. 821927[/snapback] but then again, objectively speaking, you're not a disinterested party given the fact that you have that old boston patriot avatar. and, in fairness, i've lost objectivity on the patriots recently as well. as you consider "domination", you really have to consider it juxtopposed to the calls and non-calls alike, and the impact on the game. i think if a few calls go the way of the vikes, maybe you have a different outcome. whether that's 17-14 or 28-10, or the same score is anybodies guess. for sure, the pats were the best team on the field monday night. i think the officiating was crappy, but whatever. and dillon should have been flagged for his unsportsman like conduct. you'd agree, yes?
Johnny Coli Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Did you catch the part where NE scored at will? Did you notice that the Vikings offense didn't score a single point against the NE defense? But you're right, hypothetically if the Vikings score and if hypothetically Brady and Co. are stopped then the Vikings would have been down by only 10 with the ball and if they were able to score again and stop NE again and.... I understand the "what if" game, but not when one team dominated another. The turning point ended up being the opening drive when NE went spread and Minnesota couldn't do a thing to stop them. Minnesota went into the game knowing they didn't have a very good offense and the key would be containing NE, which they could not. 821927[/snapback] What the fug kind of rationale is that? The Pats were the better team so the fact that they get consistantly massaged by the refs doesn't matter? Who gives a crap if the Vikes wouldn't have won regardless of the poor officiating in the Pats' favor? That's not the point of the thread. The point was/is, the number of calls going the Pats way at critical points in the game is observably skewed in their favor over the past several years. By your logic, there shouldn't be any referrees at all in these games because of the vast superiority of Tom Brady and your squad of HOF'ers. What a joke.
Recommended Posts