No, didn't mention it. There were missed calls on both sides, I bring up the Thomas one because its the one everyone seems up in arms about. It all evened out.
There were at least two worse calls/non-calls in the Saints' favor:1. The low hit on Favre, since that would have taken away the interception and given the Vikings 1st and 10 at the Saints 19 yard line.
2. The poor spot on Thomas's dive on 4th and inches in OT - should have been short IMO and thus Vikings ball at their own 41.
There was also the blatant holding on Shiancoe that probably prevented a TD catch but drew no flag. But in that case, Shiancoe made the catch at the 1 anyway and Peterson punched it in, so in the end there was no harm done.
And similarly, it was a bad call to award Thomas a TD when he was short, but I assume the Saints would have punched it in anyway, so that one didn't necessarily have an impact.
2 things:1. Do you think the penalty on "driving Favre into the ground was legitimate? Do you realize if not for that penalty, the drive was over as it was 3rd down?
2. This has been discussed elsewhere and defended even by non-Saints fans. Question for you regarding that spot:
Do you think P. Thomas fumbled and subsequently recovered his fumble?
1. Yes, I think it was legit, as I have already posted in this and other threads. In my view, the defender lifted Favre and drove him into the ground. It was borderline, but I expect that kind of penalty to be called because of the emphasis on protecting QBs. So IMO the drive justifiably stayed alive.2. No I don't think he fumbled. However, I think his bobble of the ball due to the hit was more than a "slight movement".
We'll just disagree on #1. As you stated it was borderline, and I don't think that's a call you make on 3rd down to award a 1st down. So, that drive SHOULD have been over, IMO. Btw, as I rewatched the game, one of the announcers also commented how it was a bad call and that's "how they teach Pop Warner" kids. On 3rd and 5, that's huge. Either way, just one of a few calls that didn't go the Saint's way (home cookin, if you will). Still a missed penalty on going low at Favre's legs.2. If he didn't fumble, then he didn't lose control. There is no middle ground. This is NOT a reception. He's a ball carrier with established possession. Yes, the ball was more than slight movement, but as I've pointed out several times, his hand was on the ball the entire time (or else it would have come flying out). But, that argument is moot. It's either a fumble or it's not. Without a fumble, he remains in possession of the ball the whole time. And the rule states, with that being the case, UNLESS HE LOSES CONTROL (i.e. fumble), then he'll be awarded forward progress. This is the point that is being missed by many. Yes, the wording may seem vague with the word "slight", but that's because it's referring to the fact that anything more than that would be considered a fumble.
So, he either fumbled or didn't and you've stated he didn't. There isn't a "gray area" of kind of possession, ball moving but not really a fumble, but not really having possession. That type of "limbo" doesn't exist. Possession or no possession. Pretty straight forward actually once you've read the rule as long as you don't focus on the word "slight". The word "slight" is also referring to the movement of the ball in relation to his hand, not the ball itself. Here is an analogy:
Pretend you're standing with your arms out in front of you holding a football at chest height. I come up and push down on the ball. You maintain a vice grip on it (pretend it's superglued to your hands) and I'm able to push the ball all the way down to your knees yet your hands stay wrapped firmly on the ball. The ball has traveled a few feet as a result but it NEVER left your possession. Obviously that's not a fumble. Obviously you maintain control of the ball the whole way as it goes from chest level down to knee level. But, the ball moves more than "slightly". This is essentially what happened. The ball "slightly" may have come loose from his right hand (although I don't even think it did that), but even with the ball moving a good distance, it was in his possession the whole time.
If, however, in the same analogy, I punch the ball out and as it's falling to the ground, you regain possession down at your knees, THAT is lost possession. That is actually a fumble. That would be a different story. If the ball had gotten knocked out of his hands completely and he then REGAINED (i.e. lost and got again), then it's a fumble and a recovery and not a 1st down.
to this day
I'm not that upset about the interception. It was a bad pass, but I was more upset with the coaches' willingness to settle for such a long FG as opposed to using the time they had to try and get closer.
I'm not that upset about the interception. It was a bad pass, but I was more upset with the coaches' willingness to settle for such a long FG as opposed to using the time they had to try and get closer.
o you think P. Thomas fumbled and subsequently recovered his fumble?
I disagree that the Favre hit and Brees hit were the same. The reason I think the Favre hit is a justifiable penalty is because the defender lifted him up and then drove him into the turf. I don't believe that happened on the Brees hit, which was more of a standard tackle. I also seem to recall that Brees had left his feet to make that pass, but I'm not sure without seeing it again. Bottom line is watching both in realtime and on replay at the time, I thought the Favre hit was a penalty and the Brees hit wasn't.The rule you are citing refers to "slight movement". I think the movement of the ball was more than "slight".On the Greer play, it was close. I'm not sure if Rice grabbed him early or just broke up the pass. I'd have to see it again. I remember thinking at the time that it was close enough that I wouldn't have been surprised to see it go either way.
retend you're standing with your arms out in front of you holding a football at chest height. I come up and push down on the ball. You maintain a vice grip on it (pretend it's superglued to your hands) and I'm able to push the ball all the way down to your knees yet your hands stay wrapped firmly on the ball. The ball has traveled a few feet as a result but it NEVER left your possession. Obviously that's not a fumble. Obviously you maintain control of the ball the whole way as it goes from chest level down to knee level. But, the ball moves more than "slightly". This is essentially what happened. The ball "slightly" may have come loose from his right hand (although I don't even think it did that), but even with the ball moving a good distance, it was in his possession the whole time.If, however, in the same analogy, I punch the ball out and as it's falling to the ground, you regain possession down at your knees, THAT is lost possession. That is actually a fumble. That would be a different story. If the ball had gotten knocked out of his hands completely and he then REGAINED (i.e. lost and got again), then it's a fumble and a recovery and not a 1st down.ETA--The "idiot" part was indeed uncalled for. JWB is good peoples that has a lot to offer here and is offering his viewpoint from a pretty non-biased standpoint which I can appreciate.
until the season started and Favre was doing good.. 
until the last game and than 
again.. 
