WWVaBeach Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 What was the deal with the free timeout? The *Pats are more than a yard from a 1st down and Brady calls for a measurement. Hence a free timeout! It was obvious they were well short. God I hate the !@#$ing *Pats!
CodeMonkey Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 What was the deal with the free timeout? The *Pats are more than a yard from a 1st down and Brady calls for a measurement. Hence a free timeout! It was obvious they were well short. God I hate the !@#$ing *Pats! That's not against the rules, it's just a scumbag thing to do.
Pneumonic Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Have you EVER seen a coach flagged like that? The announcers hadn't. I can't think of too much he could have said to them that they haven't heard in other games where flags don't seem to fly, but then again, those other games didn't involve the Pats* needing some momentum either..... Last one I recall was Billick in '07 when he f bombed one of the officials and was caught on TV. From what I have read what constitutes a PF penalty it's if its a personal attack on a ref. Coaches yell and scream all the time on the sidelines contesting calls but taking it to a personal level is a no go and gets 15. Again I didn't hear what transpired but presumably the yelling got personal in this case and a flag was dropped.
Pneumonic Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 You are right only in so far as that those things are all rules. However, if you were to take a neutral look at the Tuck Rule play, which is perhaps the third worst officiating blunder of the last fifteen years in any sport, that play did not meet the standards of the rule as stated in the rule book. As for the other two rules, those are inventions that were made by the league BECAUSE of Tom Brady. The fact is the officials and the NFL go out of their way to help the Patsies, and the fact is, they don't need it. If they are as great as everyone thinks they are, why do they need extra help from the referees? One further point, the blatant misspots of the football in critical situations, many of which are well documented, including the HORRIBLE one in the Monday Night Game that gave NE a first down on their first TD drive, that should have been a fourth and two. That is not in the rules, and it should not happen. Ed Reed is right in what he said in his comments. The game has progressed way too far for there to be those kinds of spotting issues. The fact is, the Patriots, for whatever reason, are the chosen team of the NFL, and for whatever reason, they seem to get more calls in their favor, particularly in critical situations, than any other team. And one more example, back in 1997-98, please find me a rule that allows a referee to say "just give it to them" when a receiver makes a catch with both feet clearly out of bounds giving the team a first down and then they go on to win the game. That happened on a Sunday Night Game, when the Bills lost to the Patriots. That was on the final, game winning drive by the then Drew Bledsoe led NE Patriots. It goes back that far. There's no rule in the books to justify that call, unless I'm not aware of the just give it to 'em rule. From what I recall the tuck call (snowgame?) was reviewed in the booth and correctly reversed. I agree the rule sucks but it was called correct in that snowgame. I suppose if you are one of the conspiracy theorists and believe the refs up stairs were on the take then it was a bogus implementation of the rule. The rule that allows for penalizing a player for hitting a QB low has been in place for some time. It's just been re-enforced because of the injury to Brady. All QB's are being protected because of the re-enforcement of the rule. In fact the Pats got called for a 15 yarder themselves that game for a glancing blow to the head of Flacco. For some reason no one mentions this call. As for your other contentions that the Pats are given favorable marks and'or spots maybe it's because they are a good team and get the benefit of the doubt as a result? I mean thew same thing happened to Bradsahw's Steelers, and Montana's Niners, and Jimbo Bill's and Aikman's Cowboys and all of the dynasty teams.
The_Philster Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 The refs have been cheating for the Pats since 98, at least "Just Give It To Them"
Orton's Arm Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Maybe you don't know what conspiracy means? What you are suggesting with your "the Pats, as usual, get a pass!!!" claim is that multiple officiating crews have agreed to not only plot a plan that benefits the Patriots but they have done so secretly so that no one (but you apparently) has it figured out. If I am wrong then please tell me otherwise. It's been fairly obvious, to me at least, that a fair number of games have been officiated in a Patriots-friendly way. Specific examples of this have already been enumerated in this thread, and there is little need to belabor the point. There are several possible reasons why this Patriots-friendly officiating has been observed: Coincidence. Suppose that each team has a 50% chance of being the beneficiary of any given bad call. If the number of truly game-changing bad calls is small, then it's possible for a team to disproportionately benefit from them due to random chance. An unweighted coin, when flipped ten times, will not necessarily come up heads exactly five times. Selective memory. Suppose that you get mugged in an alley, and $20 is stolen. The next week, one of your friends gives you $20 for a pizza or something, and says, "Listen, buddy, don't worry about paying me back." Ten years later, you're more likely to remember the mugging than you are the $20 gift from your friend. It's possible that people remember the times when officiating has unfairly benefited the Patriots, while forgetting those times when it unfairly harmed them. I very much doubt, however, that an objective analysis of officiating over the last ten years would demonstrate that the Patriots have been treated no better than other teams. It's also worth noting that selective memory works both ways: Patriots fans are likely to remember the (few) times when they've been harmed by officiating far more vividly than the more numerous times when the officials have helped them. A general penchant on officials' part to give the benefit of the doubt to big name players, larger market teams, or both. I first saw this issue brought up in the early to mid-'90s, when it was pointed out that Michael Irvin got away with a lot of pushing off of defenders which would draw penalties if done by a no-name WR. I strongly suspect this general tendency explains a considerable portion of the favorable officiating the Patriots have received. Patriots-specific political factors which have caused officials to be favorable to them. The NFL is run by committee, and committees can often be highly political. Whether the Patriots are the beneficiaries of committee-based politics largely depends on whether Robert Kraft has a disproportionate influence with the NFL rules committee.
Thoner7 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 What the pundits, and apparently other crybabies, don't get is the calls are being administered according to the rules of the game. Yeah, the tuck rule may suck but it's a rule. Yeah, the rule prohibiting hitting a QB below the waist may be a losy rule but it's a current rule. And yes it may suck that a player gets called for 15 for placing his hand upon a QB's helmet but it's a rule. if you want to complain about bad rules that's one thing but to insinuate that the Pats are cheating because of the proper enforcement of rules that's being a crybaby. Brady was not touched. As far as I know there is no penalty for falling to the ground next to Tom Brady.
MattM Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 It's been fairly obvious, to me at least, that a fair number of games have been officiated in a Patriots-friendly way. Specific examples of this have already been enumerated in this thread, and there is little need to belabor the point. There are several possible reasons why this Patriots-friendly officiating has been observed: Coincidence. Suppose that each team has a 50% chance of being the beneficiary of any given bad call. If the number of truly game-changing bad calls is small, then it's possible for a team to disproportionately benefit from them due to random chance. An unweighted coin, when flipped ten times, will not necessarily come up heads exactly five times. Selective memory. Suppose that you get mugged in an alley, and $20 is stolen. The next week, one of your friends gives you $20 for a pizza or something, and says, "Listen, buddy, don't worry about paying me back." Ten years later, you're more likely to remember the mugging than you are the $20 gift from your friend. It's possible that people remember the times when officiating has unfairly benefited the Patriots, while forgetting those times when it unfairly harmed them. I very much doubt, however, that an objective analysis of officiating over the last ten years would demonstrate that the Patriots have been treated no better than other teams. It's also worth noting that selective memory works both ways: Patriots fans are likely to remember the (few) times when they've been harmed by officiating far more vividly than the more numerous times when the officials have helped them. A general penchant on officials' part to give the benefit of the doubt to big name players, larger market teams, or both. I first saw this issue brought up in the early to mid-'90s, when it was pointed out that Michael Irvin got away with a lot of pushing off of defenders which would draw penalties if done by a no-name WR. I strongly suspect this general tendency explains a considerable portion of the favorable officiating the Patriots have received. Patriots-specific political factors which have caused officials to be favorable to them. The NFL is run by committee, and committees can often be highly political. Whether the Patriots are the beneficiaries of committee-based politics largely depends on whether Robert Kraft has a disproportionate influence with the NFL rules committee. Or intentional fraud/corruption. That remains a possibility. Perhaps you were trying to cover that in your last factor, but I don't think that went far enough....
MattM Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Last one I recall was Billick in '07 when he f bombed one of the officials and was caught on TV. From what I have read what constitutes a PF penalty it's if its a personal attack on a ref. Coaches yell and scream all the time on the sidelines contesting calls but taking it to a personal level is a no go and gets 15. Again I didn't hear what transpired but presumably the yelling got personal in this case and a flag was dropped. Yeah, that's one we see every day alright. The announcers themselves yesterday said that was an extremely rare call and you mean to tell me that other coaches haven't sworn at refs in the last few years. Give us all a break. That's ridiculous. There are just too many data points to deny the pro-Pats* bias in officiating in this League and I, for one, am glad that other folks are starting to notice.....
Orton's Arm Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Or intentional fraud/corruption. That remains a possibility. Perhaps you were trying to cover that in your last factor, but I don't think that went far enough.... That's a good point. If Kraft or other Patriots' officials have created "relationships" with a few key officials, that could help explain things. Especially if those "relationships" involved the transfer of large numbers of small, unmarked bills. And there wouldn't have to be a lot of people involved, as just a few heads of officiating crews could make a huge difference in how games are called. I'm not saying I have any evidence to support this possibility--I most certainly don't--but neither do I have any evidence which would cause me to dismiss it, either. On the other hand, the latter kind of evidence is typically very hard to gather. It's generally almost impossible to prove a negative. On the whole, I'd prefer to avoid placing too much emphasis on this possibility, unless at least some evidence surfaces to support it.
MattM Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 That's a good point. If Kraft or other Patriots' officials have created "relationships" with a few key officials, that could help explain things. Especially if those "relationships" involved the transfer of large numbers of small, unmarked bills. And there wouldn't have to be a lot of people involved, as just a few heads of officiating crews could make a huge difference in how games are called. I'm not saying I have any evidence to support this possibility--I most certainly don't--but neither do I have any evidence which would cause me to dismiss it, either. On the other hand, the latter kind of evidence is typically very hard to gather. It's generally almost impossible to prove a negative. On the whole, I'd prefer to avoid placing too much emphasis on this possibility, unless at least some evidence surfaces to support it. I'm not saying that's what I believe has happened. I'm at the stage, however, where if presented with evidence of that, I really wouldn't be too shocked, as it would explain an awful lot of what I've seen the last few years when it comes to the officiating in their games.....
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 :devil: :censored: Boo Hoo Bills fans.
Bullpen Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 :devil: :censored: Boo Hoo Bills fans. Oh good Lord... really? Don't you have to run out to Goodwill and buy back your Seau jersey?
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Oh good Lord... really? Don't you have to run out to Goodwill and buy back your Seau jersey? Just saying, these conspiracy theories are just pathetic, yes it was a ticky tack call, but it was deserved, if you watched the game you would know Suggs had absolutely no need to go to the ground he flat out dove at Brady's knee. Lol bribing the refs? Really?
WellDressed Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Maybe you don't know what conspiracy means? from the New York Times December 12, 1998 ''The commissioner lecturing to me as if I were a novice, instead of one who has been involved in football infinitely longer than he has, contends that criticizing a call has 'destructive and corrosive effects on the game,' '' the 80-year-old Wilson said in a statement. ''What is more destructive and corrosive -- errant calls in front of millions of viewers, or my statements of opinion?'' Wilson continued. ''People all over the country registered shock at the way the officials, however honorable their purpose, took the game away from us. Even the league has admitted to us that the calls near the conclusion of the game were incorrect.'' Wilson added: ''I do know I don't need pompous lectures from the commissioner and I feel that the $50,000 is not only unwarranted, but punitive in nature. The next time he may ask me to sit in the corner.'' undefined
Orton's Arm Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Just saying, these conspiracy theories are just pathetic, yes it was a ticky tack call, but it was deserved, if you watched the game you would know Suggs had absolutely no need to go to the ground he flat out dove at Brady's knee. Lol bribing the refs? Really? This post brings up another possibility for my list. Patriots' fans are likely to form different conclusions about whether specific calls were bad than are Bills fans. From the perspective of Patriots' fans, it probably seems like that team has benefited from questionable or one-sided officiating calls to a much smaller degree than it does from our perspective. But even after the effects of bias (on both sides) have been taken into account, I would still believe that the Patriots have, overall, been significantly helped by Patriots-friendly officiating. I would tend to think, however, that the explanations for that bias I'd mentioned in my original post (such as a bias in favor of big name players and/or large market teams, or political factors on the NFL rules committee) are far more likely explanations than is the possibility of bribery of officials.
billsrcursed Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Brady was not touched. As far as I know there is no penalty for falling to the ground next to Tom Brady. Not yet..... wait until the off-season, it's coming...
MattM Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Good for Harbaugh--he's complaining officially to the League about this: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33184004/ns/sports-nfl/ Interesting choice of a biased headline, to wit the use of the term "grumble". "Complains" would have sufficed. Tough to trust the mainstream media these days when conflicts of interest abound (like multi-billion dollar TV deals)......
truth on hold Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 every era seems to have one coach or team that gets favored: - 70's don shula in miami - 80's bill walsh in san francisco - 90's jimmy johnson/jerry jones in dallas - 2000 kraft in new england
billsfreak Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I did see a play two weeks ago in the Pats game where the Pats D-Lineman batted a Matt Ryan ball to the ground and it bounced and rolled a couple times for about 4 or 5 yards, and someone on the defense picked it up and ran all the way, and the officials called it a TD. The Falcons coached had the red flag on the ground before the play ended and even the announcers were going on about how in the world the officials couldn't see that, since it was so obvious. Seemed like a little bias, but when they reviewed it, it was so obvious they had to choice but to reverse it.
Recommended Posts