Officiating anomalies: PATS/COLTS (1 Viewer)

[switz]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

Nice non-denial denial. Here's another pic that shows his feet. "Clearly" he's about to land out of bounds.

wned:

It still doesn't show his motion, but I would agree from that still cap that he was in bounds. It obviously was close enough in motion for them to review it, so I'm not sure why you're so whiny about it.

Pointing out a claim someone has made in multiple thread is wrong = "whiny". I'll try to remember that.

Whiny about the play - not my opinion.

 

[switz]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

The picture is cropped right at his shoelaces and you say "you can't see his feet". But hey, maybe he was levitating 1" off the turf and was going to magically float sideways out of bounds a la Harry Potter.

I honestly can't tell where he is in the air from that picture. The other picture shows his foot on the ground and is much better.Welcome to my ignore list BTW. Your tool factor is way off the charts.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Welcome to my ignore list BTW. Your tool factor is way off the charts.

Just makes you that much easier to

 

[Blue-Kun]

Bill Simmons just added his, what is now, usual, whiny, insufferable two cents to this whole thing.

Bill Simmons' awfulness

Remember when he used to be a halfway good read for a Friday afternoon poop session? I'm having to read work memos on the crapper now. WORK MEMOS.

He's such a martyr....

My absolute favorite part is this, "After all, nobody likes rooting for Goliath. We've seen this happen in basketball, when unstoppable big men like Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille O'Neal were treated differently than everyone else by the officials; any defender was allowed to push, prod, elbow and basically clobber them for 48 minutes a game. But we've never seen it in football."I mean I know the guy doesn't actually know sports existed outside of the Celtics dynasty and then this resurgence of Boston sports this decade, but man that's awful. I'm reasonably sure every fan can think of 'one of those games' where just nothing went for you and it seemed bias. The 1983-84 NFC championship game between the Redskins and 49ers comes to mind for me.

Oh well, as others have said, Simmons is a joke.

 

[CalBear]

My absolute favorite part is this, "After all, nobody likes rooting for Goliath. We've seen this happen in basketball, when unstoppable big men like Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille O'Neal were treated differently than everyone else by the officials; any defender was allowed to push, prod, elbow and basically clobber them for 48 minutes a game. But we've never seen it in football."

O'Neal creates an offensive foul almost every time he touches the ball. Never called. Let alone walking (I know, it's the NBA).

 

[greenline]

What about the non-call on Faulk or the non call of Bob Sanders helmet-to-helmet spearing of Randy Moss?

Watched the whole game and those didn't stand out.Besides, people are complaining because the Patriots set a franchise record for penalties. But noone seems to be able to bring up any definitive call that was wrong. And all you have to offer is non-calls. wow.

Well two long PIs will do that. I could care less about setting any record. I just think for the league to say the crew did a good job is weak. The Hobbs PI call was ticky-tack.

I don't see how an obvious PI on the first one has ANYTHING to do with the second call. They are completely unrelated. So basically I'm hearing complaining about 1 call on a day when the Patriots set a record. And even then, its a rule interpretation - technically when a DB cuts off the WR its pass interference. Nothing to see here. Just more whining.

Dave and Ken. I'm not really sure what you are arguing?

 

[Bill Lust]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

He would have gotten both feet in bounds by a good yard. It wasn't even close.

 

[DropKick]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

The picture is cropped right at his shoelaces and you say "you can't see his feet". But hey, maybe he was levitating 1" off the turf and was going to magically float sideways out of bounds a la Harry Potter.

No kidding, the guy's foot is 5-6 FEET inbounds when he gets shoved and this guy thinks he was CLEARLY not going to come down in bounds. No credibility.

 

[Road Warriors]

The one thing I remember thinking was strange was on the first play that got reviewed (I think) where Moorehead (again, I think) caught the ball on the sideline. As he caught it, a good 1/3 of his foot was in the white, it was easy to see when it happened in real-time. Then they show the instant replay, and there is one official running in from upfield and another running in from downfield, each about 5-10 yards away from where he came down, with nothing blocking their view of his feet. And they called it a completion It got overturned of course, but refs generally don't miss 'easy' calls like that. I just remember thinking it was strange when it happened.

It was a strange play because his first foot was out of bounds (like you said), however his second foot was in. I would be willing to bet that both refs were watching his back foot. It is normally the one that determines whether he's in our out.Besides, this was overturned after the replay, so there's really nothing to complain about. No timeout was lost, and the Pats didn't need another replay later in the half.

They generally watch the ball to see the possession and then look to the feet, where a vast majority of the time it's the second foot that is in danger of being out. So they see possession, look down and see the second foot land in-bounds. That's what replay is for and getting it fixed doesn't cost anybody anything.

Except for 50% of you challenges for the day. Lets just say they make the same poor call 3 or 4 times. You run out of challenges to the poor officiating. So there is a cost.

 

[DropKick]

The title of this thread relates to 'Officiating anomalies'. I'm still waiting to hear the anomalies.

Just cutting-and-pasting from Bill Simmons, but......1. three minutes into the game, when Aaron Moorehead's entire left foot landed out of bounds on a first-down catch. 2. Ellis Hobbs got tackled from behind by Reggie Wayne while trying to catch an interception (8:58 remaining, second quarter), followed by the officials' whistling Hobbs for a 40-yard pass interference penalty because he made the mistake of bringing down Wayne's arms with his back. Hey, Indianapolis, here's a free first-and-goal for you guys. Enjoy!(Note: Watch NFL Network's replay of the game for the split-screen explanation by Mike Pereira, NFL vice president of officiating, who claims Hobbs impeded Wayne's path to the ball and initiated contact before turning around to find the football. Only one problem ... as Pereira is telling us this, the split-screen replay shows Hobbs turning around before there was any contact. It's an incredible 10 seconds of TV. I wish we could hire Pereira to describe other things that allegedly didn't happen while we show videotape to prove the opposite was true. "As this tape by Rick Salomon proves, Paris Hilton has never had sex with someone on camera ...")3. head-scratching no-call when Dallas Clark pulled down Rodney Harrison as Harrison tried to catch an end-zone interception on Indy's first drive (10:09 remaining, first quarter)4. Asante Samuel's drawing a pass-interference penalty on an uncatchable 40-yard bomb that set up Indy's first field goal (4:14 remaining, first quarter)5. incredible no-call when Moorehead blocked Rashad Baker in the back (how did Jim Nantz and Phil Simms both miss this?!?!?!?) to spring Joe Addai's 73-yard touchdown at the end of the first half. 6. 15-yard "unsportsmanlike conduct" call on Matt Light after Gary Brackett's interception, of which CBS couldn't even find a replay (14:04 remaining, fourth quarter).7. no-call when Rosie Colvin got held while trying to sack Peyton Manning on a crucial third-and-15 that the Colts ended up converting on their last touchdown drive (12:52 remaining, fourth quarter). 8. no-call on Indy's final drive when Bryan Fletcher was blocking Colvin at the end of a running play, got frustrated and ripped Colvin's helmet off right in front of an official (2:55 remaining, fourth quarter). 9. no-call when Kevin Faulk got hooked directly in front of an official while reaching for a third-and-21 pass over the middle10. pivotal first-and-goal interference call on Randy Moss when he made the mistake of running forward for five yards and turning around(Note: I'd give you the exact times on those last two plays, but both of them were mysteriously deleted from the NFL Network's official replay of the game. Hmmmmmm.)11. rarely seen "blocking someone while they're out of bounds" penalty on Willie Andrews

Here's another one for you if you have the game TIVOed or watch replay. Check out the phantom first down at the end of the first half.. a few plays before Addai's big play. Indy called a timeout and they went to commercial. When they returned, even the announcers were surprised Indy had a first down. Looked a good yard short to me.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

Nice non-denial denial. Here's another pic that shows his feet. "Clearly" he's about to land out of bounds.

wned:

It still doesn't show his motion, but I would agree from that still cap that he was in bounds. It obviously was close enough in motion for them to review it, so I'm not sure why you're so whiny about it.

Pointing out a claim someone has made in multiple thread is wrong = "whiny". I'll try to remember that.

Whiny about the play - not my opinion.

You were the one that brought that particular play into the conversation and he clearly demonstrated that you were incorrect. Just eat your crow and admit you were dead wrong instead of calling the guy that proved you wrong whiny or a tool. The first picture showed it clearly and the second one was indisputable. He was not far enough off of the turf for any momentum he might have had to have carried him out of bounds without being pushed. It was clear as day on the live reply on Sunday and it was clear as day in the photos above.

 

[Road Warriors]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

Nice non-denial denial. Here's another pic that shows his feet. "Clearly" he's about to land out of bounds.

wned:

It still doesn't show his motion, but I would agree from that still cap that he was in bounds. It obviously was close enough in motion for them to review it, so I'm not sure why you're so whiny about it.

Pointing out a claim someone has made in multiple thread is wrong = "whiny". I'll try to remember that.

Whiny about the play - not my opinion.

Nope, not at all whiny about the play. In fact, over the course of the week, you ( and only you ) have complained about the force out call. The call was absolutely right. You whined it was a phantom call. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "whiny tool", I guess. Why don't you go back to talking about how Reche Caldwell is an equal of Reggie Wayne, and Brady has had at least as good WR weapons over his career as Peyton. You'll have more cred with that argument than this one.

 

[mad sweeney]

The one thing I remember thinking was strange was on the first play that got reviewed (I think) where Moorehead (again, I think) caught the ball on the sideline. As he caught it, a good 1/3 of his foot was in the white, it was easy to see when it happened in real-time. Then they show the instant replay, and there is one official running in from upfield and another running in from downfield, each about 5-10 yards away from where he came down, with nothing blocking their view of his feet. And they called it a completion It got overturned of course, but refs generally don't miss 'easy' calls like that. I just remember thinking it was strange when it happened.

It was a strange play because his first foot was out of bounds (like you said), however his second foot was in. I would be willing to bet that both refs were watching his back foot. It is normally the one that determines whether he's in our out.Besides, this was overturned after the replay, so there's really nothing to complain about. No timeout was lost, and the Pats didn't need another replay later in the half.

They generally watch the ball to see the possession and then look to the feet, where a vast majority of the time it's the second foot that is in danger of being out. So they see possession, look down and see the second foot land in-bounds. That's what replay is for and getting it fixed doesn't cost anybody anything.

Except for 50% of you challenges for the day. Lets just say they make the same poor call 3 or 4 times. You run out of challenges to the poor officiating. So there is a cost.

How do you figure? If you successfully challenge you get another one. You still have your two challenges. Yes there is a scenario where having to overrule a challenge could cost you the ability later to challenge, but it would be a very rare ocurence. And again, the refs have to check possession first then feet. It's rare that the first foot is out and second is in and you can't really blame the refs for "getting it wrong".

 

[TommyGilmore]

The one thing I remember thinking was strange was on the first play that got reviewed (I think) where Moorehead (again, I think) caught the ball on the sideline. As he caught it, a good 1/3 of his foot was in the white, it was easy to see when it happened in real-time. Then they show the instant replay, and there is one official running in from upfield and another running in from downfield, each about 5-10 yards away from where he came down, with nothing blocking their view of his feet. And they called it a completion It got overturned of course, but refs generally don't miss 'easy' calls like that. I just remember thinking it was strange when it happened.

It was a strange play because his first foot was out of bounds (like you said), however his second foot was in. I would be willing to bet that both refs were watching his back foot. It is normally the one that determines whether he's in our out.Besides, this was overturned after the replay, so there's really nothing to complain about. No timeout was lost, and the Pats didn't need another replay later in the half.

They generally watch the ball to see the possession and then look to the feet, where a vast majority of the time it's the second foot that is in danger of being out. So they see possession, look down and see the second foot land in-bounds. That's what replay is for and getting it fixed doesn't cost anybody anything.

Except for 50% of you challenges for the day. Lets just say they make the same poor call 3 or 4 times. You run out of challenges to the poor officiating. So there is a cost.

How do you figure? If you successfully challenge you get another one.

No. That rule only comes into play if BOTH of your 2 challenges are successful -- and even then, you only get ONE additional challenge. So, the maximum number of challenges you can have in a single game is 3. And the Patriots were forced to waste one of those three challenges on a bad call.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

The one thing I remember thinking was strange was on the first play that got reviewed (I think) where Moorehead (again, I think) caught the ball on the sideline. As he caught it, a good 1/3 of his foot was in the white, it was easy to see when it happened in real-time. Then they show the instant replay, and there is one official running in from upfield and another running in from downfield, each about 5-10 yards away from where he came down, with nothing blocking their view of his feet. And they called it a completion It got overturned of course, but refs generally don't miss 'easy' calls like that. I just remember thinking it was strange when it happened.

It was a strange play because his first foot was out of bounds (like you said), however his second foot was in. I would be willing to bet that both refs were watching his back foot. It is normally the one that determines whether he's in our out.Besides, this was overturned after the replay, so there's really nothing to complain about. No timeout was lost, and the Pats didn't need another replay later in the half.

They generally watch the ball to see the possession and then look to the feet, where a vast majority of the time it's the second foot that is in danger of being out. So they see possession, look down and see the second foot land in-bounds. That's what replay is for and getting it fixed doesn't cost anybody anything.

Except for 50% of you challenges for the day. Lets just say they make the same poor call 3 or 4 times. You run out of challenges to the poor officiating. So there is a cost.

How do you figure? If you successfully challenge you get another one. You still have your two challenges. Yes there is a scenario where having to overrule a challenge could cost you the ability later to challenge, but it would be a very rare ocurence. And again, the refs have to check possession first then feet. It's rare that the first foot is out and second is in and you can't really blame the refs for "getting it wrong".

my point was that his foot was so far out of bounds, it was hard NOT to see it, even if they were focused on the other foot

 

[mad sweeney]

The one thing I remember thinking was strange was on the first play that got reviewed (I think) where Moorehead (again, I think) caught the ball on the sideline. As he caught it, a good 1/3 of his foot was in the white, it was easy to see when it happened in real-time. Then they show the instant replay, and there is one official running in from upfield and another running in from downfield, each about 5-10 yards away from where he came down, with nothing blocking their view of his feet. And they called it a completion It got overturned of course, but refs generally don't miss 'easy' calls like that. I just remember thinking it was strange when it happened.

It was a strange play because his first foot was out of bounds (like you said), however his second foot was in. I would be willing to bet that both refs were watching his back foot. It is normally the one that determines whether he's in our out.Besides, this was overturned after the replay, so there's really nothing to complain about. No timeout was lost, and the Pats didn't need another replay later in the half.

They generally watch the ball to see the possession and then look to the feet, where a vast majority of the time it's the second foot that is in danger of being out. So they see possession, look down and see the second foot land in-bounds. That's what replay is for and getting it fixed doesn't cost anybody anything.

Except for 50% of you challenges for the day. Lets just say they make the same poor call 3 or 4 times. You run out of challenges to the poor officiating. So there is a cost.

How do you figure? If you successfully challenge you get another one. You still have your two challenges. Yes there is a scenario where having to overrule a challenge could cost you the ability later to challenge, but it would be a very rare ocurence. And again, the refs have to check possession first then feet. It's rare that the first foot is out and second is in and you can't really blame the refs for "getting it wrong".

my point was that his foot was so far out of bounds, it was hard NOT to see it, even if they were focused on the other foot

Unless they were looking at his hands first to see if he even caught it before looking at his feet. They missed the first foot while looking at the hands, then saw the second foot in. It makes a lot more sense that two refs right there saw his hands then his second foot in than a hidden agenda to screw the Pats with deliberate biased reffing.

 

[twitch]

There were 2 refs all over the play. Shouldnt atleast one of those slackers been looking at the guy's feet?? It was just a crappy call. They blew it. And the replay system saved their incompetence, but it was totally a sign of things to come.

 

[mad sweeney]

There were 2 refs all over the play. Shouldnt atleast one of those slackers been looking at the guy's feet?? It was just a crappy call. They blew it. And the replay system saved their incompetence, but it was totally a sign of things to come.

How can they tell if a guy catches the ball if they look at his feet? It's not like the refs coordinate: you take the hands, I'll take the feet. All refs when judging catches watch the ball then check the feet. Period. That's the way it's done. But I understand you guys wanting to believe that any call you don't like is a conspiracy against the Pats, makes it easier to get bent over the bad rep they've been fostering. That way you can eschew objectivity and try to make it into a rallying point. Fact of the matter is that both refs saw the same thing and in this r occasion the proper procedure didn't work. If either of those refs were looking at his feet instead of watching him catch the ball then they'd actually be incompetent. But don't let the truth interfere with your Patriots Rally.

 

[twitch]

There were 2 refs all over the play. Shouldnt atleast one of those slackers been looking at the guy's feet?? It was just a crappy call. They blew it. And the replay system saved their incompetence, but it was totally a sign of things to come.

How can they tell if a guy catches the ball if they look at his feet? It's not like the refs coordinate: you take the hands, I'll take the feet. All refs when judging catches watch the ball then check the feet. Period. That's the way it's done. But I understand you guys wanting to believe that any call you don't like is a conspiracy against the Pats, makes it easier to get bent over the bad rep they've been fostering. That way you can eschew objectivity and try to make it into a rallying point. Fact of the matter is that both refs saw the same thing and in this r occasion the proper procedure didn't work. If either of those refs were looking at his feet instead of watching him catch the ball then they'd actually be incompetent. But don't let the truth interfere with your Patriots Rally.

Mad-The guy was extremely airborn. That's why most everyone sitting at home knew he couldnt have come down in bounds. The guy should have just stayed ground level and caught the ball with his hands like any decent receiver would have. instead, he skies in the air to catch it with his body, with his momentum carrying him toward the sidelines. But his FEET were almost at eye level. thats why it was such an obvious thing to do. as a ref, you expect the guy to make the catch. You dont ignore it, but you dont ignore the feet either. But like I said, there were TWO guys on the play. That's TWO guys that blew it. Youre unnessecarily making excuses for the stripes here in this case. it was just a bad call.

 

[Bill Lust]

If either of those refs were looking at his feet instead of watching him catch the ball then they'd actually be incompetent.

That's weird, because the refs WERE incompetent and it sure didn't seem like they were looking at his feet.

 

[Finless]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

The picture is cropped right at his shoelaces and you say "you can't see his feet". But hey, maybe he was levitating 1" off the turf and was going to magically float sideways out of bounds a la Harry Potter.

I honestly can't tell where he is in the air from that picture. The other picture shows his foot on the ground and is much better.Welcome to my ignore list BTW. Your tool factor is way off the charts.

I think the real issue is you are not capable of watching a NE thread go by without hoping in and making some over the top ridiculous statement. I love the one below. As if anyone who watched that game was thinking Indy was getting shafted on calls and the refs tried to give the Pats the game. That was a great spin. I know you're not fishing, you're just highly delusional when it comes to NE.

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

 

[mad sweeney]

There were 2 refs all over the play. Shouldnt atleast one of those slackers been looking at the guy's feet?? It was just a crappy call. They blew it. And the replay system saved their incompetence, but it was totally a sign of things to come.

How can they tell if a guy catches the ball if they look at his feet? It's not like the refs coordinate: you take the hands, I'll take the feet. All refs when judging catches watch the ball then check the feet. Period. That's the way it's done. But I understand you guys wanting to believe that any call you don't like is a conspiracy against the Pats, makes it easier to get bent over the bad rep they've been fostering. That way you can eschew objectivity and try to make it into a rallying point. Fact of the matter is that both refs saw the same thing and in this r occasion the proper procedure didn't work. If either of those refs were looking at his feet instead of watching him catch the ball then they'd actually be incompetent. But don't let the truth interfere with your Patriots Rally.

Mad-The guy was extremely airborn. That's why most everyone sitting at home knew he couldnt have come down in bounds. The guy should have just stayed ground level and caught the ball with his hands like any decent receiver would have. instead, he skies in the air to catch it with his body, with his momentum carrying him toward the sidelines. But his FEET were almost at eye level. thats why it was such an obvious thing to do. as a ref, you expect the guy to make the catch. You dont ignore it, but you dont ignore the feet either. But like I said, there were TWO guys on the play. That's TWO guys that blew it. Youre unnessecarily making excuses for the stripes here in this case. it was just a bad call.

That's TWO guys who don't assume he makes a catch and actually watch the play, what extreme incompetence. Nobody ignored the feet, they went right to it as soon as they made sure he made the catch, regardless of what everyone at home thinks about how the play will end. You want to think there was a concerted effort to push the game in the Colts favor, you're not going to look at things objectively and realize that there's a difference between wrong and bad calls. It would be great if refs could bend the laws of physics to get the right calls all the time, but they can only look at one thing at a time just like the rest of us. And yes they made some errors, but no more than any other game I've ever seen. And I'd rather see a ref call what he actually sees rather than what he assumes, knowing that there is always replay if the call is wrong simply because he can't look at two different things at the same time. As a matter of fact, last year there was a directive from the league for refs to not rely on assumptions and actually only call fouls that they observe, not based on the reactions of players (falling down, head twisting etc...) And most of all, a wrong call is not always bad, even if it needs to be reviewed. And if someone can't make that distinction then there is simply no hope of understanding.I'm not even sure we're talking about the same play anymore.

 

[twitch]

There were 2 refs all over the play. Shouldnt atleast one of those slackers been looking at the guy's feet?? It was just a crappy call. They blew it. And the replay system saved their incompetence, but it was totally a sign of things to come.

How can they tell if a guy catches the ball if they look at his feet? It's not like the refs coordinate: you take the hands, I'll take the feet. All refs when judging catches watch the ball then check the feet. Period. That's the way it's done. But I understand you guys wanting to believe that any call you don't like is a conspiracy against the Pats, makes it easier to get bent over the bad rep they've been fostering. That way you can eschew objectivity and try to make it into a rallying point. Fact of the matter is that both refs saw the same thing and in this r occasion the proper procedure didn't work. If either of those refs were looking at his feet instead of watching him catch the ball then they'd actually be incompetent. But don't let the truth interfere with your Patriots Rally.

Mad-The guy was extremely airborn. That's why most everyone sitting at home knew he couldnt have come down in bounds. The guy should have just stayed ground level and caught the ball with his hands like any decent receiver would have. instead, he skies in the air to catch it with his body, with his momentum carrying him toward the sidelines. But his FEET were almost at eye level. thats why it was such an obvious thing to do. as a ref, you expect the guy to make the catch. You dont ignore it, but you dont ignore the feet either. But like I said, there were TWO guys on the play. That's TWO guys that blew it. Youre unnessecarily making excuses for the stripes here in this case. it was just a bad call.

That's TWO guys who don't assume he makes a catch and actually watch the play, what extreme incompetence. Nobody ignored the feet, they went right to it as soon as they made sure he made the catch, regardless of what everyone at home thinks about how the play will end. You want to think there was a concerted effort to push the game in the Colts favor, you're not going to look at things objectively and realize that there's a difference between wrong and bad calls. It would be great if refs could bend the laws of physics to get the right calls all the time, but they can only look at one thing at a time just like the rest of us. And yes they made some errors, but no more than any other game I've ever seen. And I'd rather see a ref call what he actually sees rather than what he assumes, knowing that there is always replay if the call is wrong simply because he can't look at two different things at the same time. As a matter of fact, last year there was a directive from the league for refs to not rely on assumptions and actually only call fouls that they observe, not based on the reactions of players (falling down, head twisting etc...) And most of all, a wrong call is not always bad, even if it needs to be reviewed. And if someone can't make that distinction then there is simply no hope of understanding.I'm not even sure we're talking about the same play anymore.

you lost me, man. I never said the fix was in. just that it was a bad call and 2 guys missed it. it was a fairly simple point. carry on.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

Please point out if anything in this image suggests his inside foot was going to land out of bounds.

You can't see his feet, nor determine his elevation, motion, anything from a still image. Nice try though.

The picture is cropped right at his shoelaces and you say "you can't see his feet". But hey, maybe he was levitating 1" off the turf and was going to magically float sideways out of bounds a la Harry Potter.

I honestly can't tell where he is in the air from that picture. The other picture shows his foot on the ground and is much better.Welcome to my ignore list BTW. Your tool factor is way off the charts.

I think the real issue is you are not capable of watching a NE thread go by without hoping in and making some over the top ridiculous statement. I love the one below. As if anyone who watched that game was thinking Indy was getting shafted on calls and the refs tried to give the Pats the game. That was a great spin. I know you're not fishing, you're just highly delusional when it comes to NE.

I saw quite a few non-calls on the Pats, and I thought the "push out" at the end was a joke, as Stallworth IMO was clearly going to land with his foot out of bounds. But I'm not starting threads saying the officials gave NE the game at the end.

I have to agree here. I think Switz is easily one of the best posters on this board but this seems a bit of a biased argument. For anyone to say the refs didn't play a extremely large role in that game staying close, in favor of Indy, is not looking at things objectively. It wasn't just the disparity in penalty yardage (which was obviously enormous)...it was the way it happened. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, either, but it felt to me watching the game that the insane penalities stopped once it looked like NE had no chance of covering. That Peyton turnover at the end flipped that, though...

 

[protoslacker]

Here's another one for you if you have the game TIVOed or watch replay. Check out the phantom first down at the end of the first half.. a few plays before Addai's big play. Indy called a timeout and they went to commercial. When they returned, even the announcers were surprised Indy had a first down. Looked a good yard short to me.

Man! Its hard to sort all this out with partisan fans so impassioned. I didn't have a dog in this fight so I was just looking forward to a great game, but I think the refs kinda wrecked it. That first down mark was inexplicable. I don't care who won- the officials screwed up one of the greatest matchups we'll see in a long while.