Looks like Irsay finally pulled out his checkbook...

[BleedingBlue]

..to pay off the refs.

I loved being the benefactor of these calls. Its like having Tom Brady on your team.

[oldunclemark]

These are the regular refs we wanted, remember?

[NewColtsFan]

Seemed like we got most every favorable call last night. Even the broadcasters couldn't get over it.

And, honestly, I think we got very, very, very lucky on some of those calls. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the NFL offices as they evaluate the refs on those calls.

But, sometimes those kind of things happen to bad teams, and the Jags are a bad, bad team.

Nice to be on the receiving end of those close calls. Christmas came early! Let's enjoy it!

[Old Colt]

Calls were close, but they were all called or ruled on correctly. Jags did hit Luck late and in the head on the pass play. Jag player lead with shoulder, but again made contact with the head and jaw on Luck's slide, intent there or not, it is the rule. Luck did cross the line on the sneak, and so on and so on..... We're just not used to being on the positive side of these calls.....enjoy it!

[FireJimCaldwell]

The Colts have won games in the past over officiating errors, and have lost games in the past over officiating errors. They will continue to do so in the future as well.

What comes around goes around, with the only difference being sometimes the stage is a bit bigger when these errors pop up. Cough Illegal Contact Cough in Foxcoughbourough cough in the playoffs cough.

[Smonroe]

Calls were close, but they were all called or ruled on correctly. Jags did hit Luck late and in the head on the pass play. Jag player lead with shoulder, but again made contact with the head and jaw on Luck's slide, intent there or not, it is the rule. Luck did cross the line on the sneak, and so on and so on..... We're just not used to being on the positive side of these calls.....enjoy it!

And on the Jag pass reception? I still don't know how we won that challenge.

[SOMDColtsfan]

Really? While its great to have calls go the Colts way, can`t agree with questioning Irsay`s integrity on it.

[House]

And on the Jag pass reception? I still don't know how we won that challenge.

The way it has always been explained to me was finishing the catch.

Gotta control the ball securely to the ground. Not let it explode out of your arms.

[shakedownstreet]

can`t agree with questioning Irsay`s integrity on it.

^^^^^^^^^^

insert sense of humor here

[swflacoltsfans]

They gave us the calls last night because we won't get any against new england next game. bill b already told the refs how to play it.

[jskinnz]

And on the Jag pass reception? I still don't know how we won that challenge.

He did not "complete" the catch when ball popped out. That call has been made several times over the years. Can argue the merit of the rule itself but the zebras got it right with how it is currently called.

[buccolts]

He did not "complete" the catch when ball popped out. That call has been made several times over the years. Can argue the merit of the rule itself but the zebras got it right with how it is currently called.

Agreed. I don't have an issue with the call they made, it's the merit of the rule that gets me.

Same with the failed TD catch for Calvin Johnson against the Bears a few years ago.

[ColtsSouljah]

I totally disagree with this thread. You may personally think some of the calls were the result of stupid rules, but they were the correct enforcement of the rules. Do I think the new "catch" rules are stupid? Yes. Was the overturned completion against the Jags the correct call? Yes, it was exactly in line with the rules. The same goes for the other so called "questionable" calls.

And next week, when New England inevitably will get flags in their favor that are questionable, this game cannot be used as "well, we had that last week."

[Coltswarriors]

The only call I didn't agree with was the Cecil Shorts catch overturn, I thought it was a catch... other than that I thought the refs were fine.

[FireJimCaldwell]

He did not "complete" the catch when ball popped out. That call has been made several times over the years. Can argue the merit of the rule itself but the zebras got it right with how it is currently called.

The worst part of that particular play was Mayock saying the play was dead when he went out of bounds. There are catches made/not made every game when a player goes out of bounds/out of the end zone,etc where they still go to the ground. The play would have/should have gone back to the out of bounds spot if he the receiver had taken it to the ground and held on, but since he didn't the out of bounds spot didn't come into play.

[JoKeR]

The incomplete catch on the sidelines is the only play the Jags were screwed on. That was a catch.

[jskinnz]

The incomplete catch on the sidelines is the only play the Jags were screwed on. That was a catch.

Not by the way the rule is stated.

[Superman]

He did not "complete" the catch when ball popped out. That call has been made several times over the years. Can argue the merit of the rule itself but the zebras got it right with how it is currently called.

Yep. I was listening to that call on the radio, and Trent Green was the color man. He and whoever was doing play by play were surprised by the call, but they said themselves that the ball came out as the receiver's arm hit the ground. It was obvious that they didn't understand the rule properly, and I hadn't even seen the play yet.

When the receiver is going to the ground in the process of completing the catch, he must control the ball through the whole catch. If he loses control as he contacts the ground, it's incomplete. People have been calling it the Calvin Johnson rule for a couple of years because he had a high-profile touchdown overturned at the end of a game, but this has been the case for many years now. It's actually what overturned the Polamalu interception against us in the 2005 playoff game. We definitely got some love on that play, but if they can overturn a catch based on the ball coming out as the receiver gets OFF the ground, they definitely are going to call it incomplete if the ball comes out while the receiver is going down.

It doesn't matter if it's a sideline toe-tap, an endzone foot drag, or if it happens in the middle of the field and the receiver isn't touched. If the player is going to the ground while completing the catch, he must control the football through the entire catch.

[oldunclemark]

These are the regular refs..remember..it was disgrace to the game not to have them..

...how can we question such officiating genius?

[JoKeR]

Not by the way the rule is stated.

Yeah I know, I just think the rule stinks. All the other calls were kinda close but I fully agread with them. The Jags don't play disciplined football and penalties are bound to be called.

[betheafan41]

And on the Jag pass reception? I still don't know how we won that challenge.

it was a good call...NFL rules state: If a player goes to the ground while in the process of making a catch, he must control the ball all the way through until his momentum from the fall ends. If at any point before his momentum stops he loses control of the ball and it touches the ground, the pass is incomplete.....

so in the jags case the WR was in the process of the catch his momentum pulled him down and although he stepped out he still has to maintain possession when he hits the ground in which he did not and it was ruled incomplete. that rule has been around for a couple years. same thing in the endzone, WR catches the ball in the endzone even if both feet are on the ground if the ball hits the ground at any time it is ruled incomplete

[T Y Goodbye]

One question..I agree on the call according to the rules, but if his third foot came down in bounds..would that still have been considered an incomplete pass?

I'm not really up on the rules as to the letter of the law...but to me, if that 3rd foot was in bounds...maintaining possession throughout the catch should not have been an issue, because it looked like he made a football move, (diving for extra yards)...

I know its a moot point, I just would like some clarification on that...

[cbear]

I thought Luck crossed the goal line, but all the other calls were incorrect IMO. But I'll still take it!

[Colts20593]

We got the calls last night because they were the correct calls. Luck crossed the goal line, receiver fumbled and clearly was not down. Shorts has to complete the process to the ground and didn't.

No, the refs didn't give us any calls, we out executed the Jags, we out played them, we won the game.

I'm not going to say sorry for putting a whoopin on an inferior team

[John Dee]

And on the Jag pass reception? I still don't know how we won that challenge.

That was the only call I would say Indy got "LUCKY" on.

Luck is for losers, you make your own luck or ... you draft one...

Indy was the better team.

[Smonroe]

That was the only call I would say Indy got "LUCKY" on.

Luck is for losers, you make your own luck or ... you draft one...

Indy was the better team.

As the others have explained, I forgot about the part where the receiver has to maintain control of the ball to the ground.

Thank goodness for your bolded statement.

[hawkeyes]

Calls were close, but they were all called or ruled on correctly.

I think we got a lot of calls our way, but agree they were all correct - thats just the way the ball bounces some times! I don think thats being a homer, I just think thats the way it worked out this particular game.

[Superman]

One question..I agree on the call according to the rules, but if his third foot came down in bounds..would that still have been considered an incomplete pass?

I'm not really up on the rules as to the letter of the law...but to me, if that 3rd foot was in bounds...maintaining possession throughout the catch should not have been an issue, because it looked like he made a football move, (diving for extra yards)...

I know its a moot point, I just would like some clarification on that...

The way I understand it, if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of completing the catch, he must control the ball all the way to the ground, until his momentum stops. Doesn't matter how many steps he takes, or if he makes a "football move" or not.

They got rid of the "football move" designation in order to reduce the grey area or judgment calls in officiating.

So, for instance, if a player is making a catch and falling to the ground, but has enough control to reach the ball over the goalline, he still has to maintain control of the ball until his momentum stops. If he loses control out of bounds, its an incomplete pass. If he loses control in the field of play and regains it before the ball touches the ground, it's a catch, because the play isn't dead yet. He's still in bounds and the ball hasn't hit the ground.

It can be confusing, but I think it's pretty clear. You have to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground until your momentum stops, regardless of how many steps you take or how many feet you get in bounds. Once you come to terms with that fundamental requirement, everything falls in line.

[DoomOf21]

The way I understand it, if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of completing the catch, he must control the ball all the way to the ground, until his momentum stops. Doesn't matter how many steps he takes, or if he makes a "football move" or not.

They got rid of the "football move" designation in order to reduce the grey area or judgment calls in officiating.

So, for instance, if a player is making a catch and falling to the ground, but has enough control to reach the ball over the goalline, he still has to maintain control of the ball until his momentum stops. If he loses control out of bounds, its an incomplete pass. If he loses control in the field of play and regains it before the ball touches the ground, it's a catch, because the play isn't dead yet. He's still in bounds and the ball hasn't hit the ground.

It can be confusing, but I think it's pretty clear. You have to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground until your momentum stops, regardless of how many steps you take or how many feet you get in bounds. Once you come to terms with that fundamental requirement, everything falls in line.

I agree with a couple of posters here. I think all the calls were correct except the receiver going to the ground call. At what point does it become a fumble (In general since he was out of bounds)?

Really this all started with Polamalu not possessing the interception in the 2005 playoffs.

[GoColts8818]

If that had been the replacement refs last night people would have been screaming about how awful they were. This just proves to me that the regular refs aren't much better than the replacement refs we just focused on all the mistakes the replacement refs made and ignore it when the regular refs do it.

[dw49]

If that had been the replacement refs last night people would have been screaming about how awful they were. This just proves to me that the regular refs aren't much better than the replacement refs we just focused on all the mistakes the replacement refs made and ignore it when the regular refs do it.

How many calls do you think they missed ? The fumble and Luck TD looked razor close but correct. The Short catch is probably more interpretation of the rules than a blown call. The roughing penalties on Luck were legit. I thought Gabbert moved like the snap was coming. All close but replay backed them up. Maybe some think because they were close , that should go into the ref's decision on how the next one goes ? Or maybe some were listening to those two goof balls commentating the game. One was calling for PI on the colts for brushing a WR's elbow ...

[John Dee]

If that had been the replacement refs last night people would have been screaming about how awful they were. This just proves to me that the regular refs aren't much better than the replacement refs we just focused on all the mistakes the replacement refs made and ignore it when the regular refs do it.

Exactly... the problem the replacement refs had came from the "respect" aspect. The Players knew they could get over or get away with anything on them. And they tried... The Minny game comes to mind.. just dirty play on the Vikes part.

Outside of that and a few "rule" mistakes.. not a lot of diff,....

[Warhorse]

One bad call, which was their offensive lineman getting hiney canned and then called for a chop block. The rest were fine, the fumble was splitting hairs and the split went our way this time. Still wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game.

As deleted we are on defense, was glad to have MJD in street clothes.

[T Y Goodbye]

The way I understand it, if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of completing the catch, he must control the ball all the way to the ground, until his momentum stops. Doesn't matter how many steps he takes, or if he makes a "football move" or not.

They got rid of the "football move" designation in order to reduce the grey area or judgment calls in officiating.

So, for instance, if a player is making a catch and falling to the ground, but has enough control to reach the ball over the goalline, he still has to maintain control of the ball until his momentum stops. If he loses control out of bounds, its an incomplete pass. If he loses control in the field of play and regains it before the ball touches the ground, it's a catch, because the play isn't dead yet. He's still in bounds and the ball hasn't hit the ground.

It can be confusing, but I think it's pretty clear. You have to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground until your momentum stops, regardless of how many steps you take or how many feet you get in bounds. Once you come to terms with that fundamental requirement, everything falls in line.

Thanks for the clarification..I hadn't realized they got rid of the "football move" rule...makes sense now..

[Superman]

I agree with a couple of posters here. I think all the calls were correct except the receiver going to the ground call. At what point does it become a fumble (In general since he was out of bounds)?

Really this all started with Polamalu not possessing the interception in the 2005 playoffs.

He has to complete the catch before it can be a fumble.

Polamalu's overturned interception is the first time I remember seeing it called this way, and it was the most egregious. I don't always agree with the interpretation of the rule; it can go overboard.

[ColtsBlueFL]

They put this catch rule in place because too many rules favored offense. They also put in a rule allowing a DB to push a receiver out of bounds before he can get both feet down, and it is an incompletion (provided the DB wasn't too early and it was P.I.)

The receiver now must be in full control of the ball all the way through a catch, whether touched by opponent or not. Going out of bounds cannot end the catch/play, and while the ground can't cause a fumble, it can cause an incompletion. Basically, you must be able to hand it to an official at the conclusion of the catch/play or it will be ruled incomplete.

[braveheartcolt]

Calls were all fine. And what about the diving catch by the Jags receiver in the first quarter, that popped up off the ground? They rushed up to the LOS and got the snap away before we could challenge. Clearly an incomplete catch. Sound like too many are trying to find excuses on why we are winning...

[Big Red]

Refereeing is one variable that is out of the control of players and coaches. I want my teams to believe that "all refs suck" so we can try to avoid the emotional roller coaster ride that bad officiating can take you on. Do all refs really suck? Probably not, but just when you think you can trust them to get things right they screw things up royally. Same in every sport