After Pittsburgh getting hosed, I'm done with NFL

[Chrisaaron1023]

I just thought of another thing. When the Patriots open the season opening night next year who TF are they gonna play?? Big Ben again.. how original..

[2006Coltsbestever]

Lets just face the facts without the Manning's being in the Playoffs it is the Patriots world. Peyton 3-1 vs Brady in Title games and Eli 2-0 in SB's. Without those 2 guys the Pats may have 10 SB wins by now?

[NewColtsFan]

12 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

I'm not buying it that the Patriots are SB contenders every single year on their own. In a league where winning and losing teams fluctuate season by season, the Patriots are always good. Even when they suffer significant injuries, the Patriots continue winning. I understand that they have possibly the GOAT HC and QB. Other teams have HOF QB's, smart HC, and they have losing seasons. Also, every single controversial call benefits NE. All of the winning, and benefiting from controversy cannot be a coincidence. Some shenanigans are obviously going on here behind the scenes, and I'm no longer going to support a crooked organization like the NFL

 

Pacergeek is done with the NFL...?!?

 

Yes!    There IS a God!!        

 

 

 

[buffalo34]

2 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

I just thought of another thing. When the Patriots open the season opening night next year who TF are they gonna play?? Big Ben again.. how original..

 

The Patriots-Steelers game is in Pittsburgh next year. The Pats' home opponents next year are:

 

Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Colts, Texans, Packers, Vikings, AFC West Champion (most likely KC at this rate).

 

Can imagine the Packers, Vikings, or Chiefs getting that TNF opening spot.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, buffalo34 said:

 

The Patriots-Steelers game is in Pittsburgh next year. The Pats' home opponents next year are:

 

Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Colts, Texans, Packers, Vikings, AFC West Champion (most likely KC at this rate).

 

Can imagine the Packers, Vikings, or Chiefs getting that TNF opening spot.

Colts will get the opening spot in Andrew Luck's return.

[GoPats]

13 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

It'll be sicken to watch yet another AFC championship in Gillette, but at this point i'm sure its only Pats fans getting excited. The rest of us look at them like the spoiled brat 16 year old girl, that gets a band new car from mommy and daddy. I just say congratulations to Patriots fans now.. nothing to get excited about anymore. We KNOW you're gonna in the end

 

That may be true for the younger generation of Patriots fans. If you're under 30, then they've basically always been a winning team. 

 

However, for old guys like me, it's more like a rags-to-riches thing, going from living in a van down by the river to the nicest home in the neighborhood. The Patriots' run won't last forever, so we're just trying to enjoy it while it lasts. I remember (very well) the days when the Pats and Colts were the doormats of the old AFC East. So to see them succeed as they have is very rewarding for those of us who sat on cold, metal benches in the old stadium when it was half-full and they were losing. Badly. 

 

 

12 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Lets just face the facts without the Manning's being in the Playoffs it is the Patriots world. Peyton 3-1 vs Brady in Title games and Eli 2-0 in SB's.

 

Well maybe if Peyton didn't have so many one-and-dones, he would have met up with the Patriots more often in the postseason.   LOL... 

 

Ahh, I'm kidding... each playoff match-up was won by the QB who had home-field. Pretty simple, and goes to show how evenly played most of the rivalry was. 

[King Colt]

During the very long review of the play the Steelers did not huddle to plan their strategy for the remaining seconds. Belichik would have in that circumstance. On top of that the Steelers go with a slot receiver (not the tallest on the squad) on a slant route in triple coverage. Hoody says "more games are lost than are not won" and that applies to this game. Don't count the Steelers out even in Gillette Stadium. They ran through the Pts like they were pudding.

[rockywoj]

16 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i just dont think bobbling it is losing possession, and yes it depends on how you define "possession" he still had that ball.  it wasn't on the ground, nobody else had it, and it wasn't loose in the air or anything.  it was between his arms the whole time

Then your eyes are working in a different way than mine (and than the refs) ... and what you "think" is contrary to the rules. 

 

What I saw was that he hit the ground, the ball clearly falls out of his grasp, lying on the ground. He then re-establishes his grasp, but because the ball fell out of his grasp, it is no different than a pass where the ball hits the ground as he starts to grasp it.

 

When you say it was between his arms the whole time, I categorically say that is simply not true.  His left hand falls off the ball and his right hand is kind of on the top side of the ball, with the ball effectively just laying on the ground, even though his right hand is still against the side of the ball.  He then reaches with his left hand to again establish control over the ball.  I have repeatedly, frame by frame looked at this, over and over.  It is just soooo clear that he lost grip with his left hand and the ball is then laying on the ground.

 

To quote Eli Manning on this (as reported in an NFL.com article today (Dec. 19th) :

 

While most the world melted down over Jesse James' touchdown being overturned in the Pittsburgh Steelers' loss to the New England Patriots, Eli Manning shrugged off the call.

"I know the rules," the New York Giants quarterback told the New York Post about the seemingly perplexing catch canon.

 

If you are baffled by the inconsistent, convoluted catch rule, and find yourself shouting 'What is a catch!?!' at your viewing screen each Sunday, please know you aren't alone. You just aren't Manning.

 

"I was watching the game live, you see it, and it doesn't look like an incompletion at all," Manning explained his processing of the James catch/non-catch. "Once they slow it down and see him going to the ground and the ball hitting the ground, incompletion."

 

Unlike Jim Nantz and Tony Romo, who seemed puzzled by the elongated review of the touchdown, Manning was confident the replay officials would overturn the score.

 

"You hate it, when you're watching it live, you don't even think about that not being a catch," he said. "When they run it down, hey, when you go to the ground you got to finish with the ball in your hand. When it hits the ground and there's movement, I was like, 'I think that's enough evidence where they're gonna reverse that.'"

 

While others scratch their heads trying to reconcile the catch rule, Manning believes the line is bright yellow. The Big Blue quarterback pointed to a Sterling Shepard touchdown being ruled incomplete earlier this year as evidence for the consistency of the calls.

 

"I think it is clear what a catch is," he said. "Especially when you're going to the ground, you got to control the ball the whole time. You got to have it. If the ball hits the ground, you're going to the ground, the ball moves or hits the ground and there's a little loss of contact through the end of the play, it's gonna be an incompletion."

 

................

 

I agree with Eli, I think the play is clear as day, in slow motion.  The bobble is not noticeable in normal speed (fast motion), but in slow mo, it is pretty darn clear cut. (And understand, although I respect the Patriots, I reeeeally dislike them, so I was cheering HARD for the Steelers!  Ergo, I claim no bias in my view.  I feel I am being 100% objective and to my eyes, there is 100% no doubt that he loses his grasp on the ball as it hits the ground.)  I find it shocking that people are still debating the call, given the rule.

[aaron11]

9 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Then  your eyes are working in a different way than mine (and than the refs).  What I saw was that he hit the ground, the ball clearly falls out of his grasp, lying on the ground. He then re-establishes his grasp, but because the ball fell out of his grasp, it is no different than a pass where the ball hits the ground as he starts to grasp it.

 

When you say it was between his arms the whole time, I categorically say that is simply not true.  His left hand falls off the ball and his right hand is kind of on the top side of the ball, with the ball effectively just laying on the ground, even though his right hand is still against the side of the ball.  He then reaches with his left hand to again establish control over the ball.  I have repeatedly, frame by frame looked at this, over and over.  It is just soooo clear that he lost grip with his left hand and the ball is then laying on the ground.

 

To quote Eli Manning on this (as reported in an NFL.com article today (Dec. 19th) :

 

While most the world melted down over Jesse James' touchdown being overturned in the Pittsburgh Steelers' loss to the New England Patriots, Eli Manning shrugged off the call.

"I know the rules," the New York Giants quarterback told the New York Post about the seemingly perplexing catch canon.

 

If you are baffled by the inconsistent, convoluted catch rule, and find yourself shouting 'What is a catch!?!' at your viewing screen each Sunday, please know you aren't alone. You just aren't Manning.

 

"I was watching the game live, you see it, and it doesn't look like an incompletion at all," Manning explained his processing of the James catch/non-catch. "Once they slow it down and see him going to the ground and the ball hitting the ground, incompletion."

 

Unlike Jim Nantz and Tony Romo, who seemed puzzled by the elongated review of the touchdown, Manning was confident the replay officials would overturn the score.

 

"You hate it, when you're watching it live, you don't even think about that not being a catch," he said. "When they run it down, hey, when you go to the ground you got to finish with the ball in your hand. When it hits the ground and there's movement, I was like, 'I think that's enough evidence where they're gonna reverse that.'"

 

While others scratch their heads trying to reconcile the catch rule, Manning believes the line is bright yellow. The Big Blue quarterback pointed to a Sterling Shepard touchdown being ruled incomplete earlier this year as evidence for the consistency of the calls.

 

"I think it is clear what a catch is," he said. "Especially when you're going to the ground, you got to control the ball the whole time. You got to have it. If the ball hits the ground, you're going to the ground, the ball moves or hits the ground and there's a little loss of contact through the end of the play, it's gonna be an incompletion."

 

................

 

I agree with Eli, I think the play is clear as day, in slow motion.  The bobble is not noticeable in normal speed (fast motion), but in slow mo, it is pretty darn clear cut. (And understand, although I respect the Patriots, I reeeeally dislike them, so I was cheering HARD for the Steelers!)

it was between his hands and his wrist the whole time he was on the ground.

 

the ball moved a little and touched the ground, but i wouldnt call that losing possession. he was holding it awkwardly, but that is still possessing it imo 

 

to me, losing possession would mean that he fumbled and lost it entirely.  it was in his grasp the whole time  

[rockywoj]

17 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

it was between his hands and his wrist the whole time he was on the ground.

 

the ball moved a little and touched the ground, but i wouldnt call that losing possession. he was holding it awkwardly, but that is still possessing it imo 

 

to me, losing possession would mean that he fumbled and lost it entirely.  it was in his grasp the whole time  

Welp, I don't know what else to say.  What I see, frame by frame, is his right hand losing grasp, with the ball then laying loose on the ground, between his hands, but out of his "grasp".

 

Here's the larger issue, if you are of the opinion that the current rule needs to be changed, how do you redefine what is a catch?

 

I think we can all agree that if a player is on his feet, makes the catch, controlling the ball in his hands, and then takes two (or is it three?) steps, then we have a catch.  When in the act of catching the ball, but not taking steps, ergo, due to either momentum or being hit, he is falling to the ground, how do you define the catch in that instance?  Can you come up with a better written definition?

 

I will tell you the thing about the catch in the Pitt / NE game, to my eyes, even though Jesse James had taken no steps and was therefore deemed as going to the ground during the act of catching, I saw the ball clearly secured in his hands, with his body twisting and his hands then reaching out with the ball in an attempt to break the plane of the goal line.  At this point in time, it was, imho, indisputable that he had full control of the ball!  

 

So, to allow for the above situation, where he clearly has full control of the ball, do you propose going back to the old way that the ground cannot cause a fumble?

 

I have to admit, I am a little bit torn on this one.  In one way, as in the Jesse James example, it sure looks to me like he clearly made the catch with control, before hitting the ground.  But by the same token, I think it's pretty jitty that when a guy is on the way to the ground upon attempting to make a catch, that if when he hits the ground and the ball flies out of his hand, that it might still be deemed a catch.

 

So perhaps the solution is found in the definition of what is a "football move".  Again with the Jesse James example, to my eyes, he DID make a football move, by virtue of changing the trajectory of his arms and hands while holding the ball ... ergo, in reaching out with his hands, with the ball clearly under his control in so doing, he did indeed make a "football move".  Changing this rule, though, might just make things even MORE subjective.  Hence, like I originally posted, this sort of thing is a sticky wicket.

[BloodyChamp]

Hot dang man...when you get called a cybaby over the Pats by Colts fans it is bad lol!

 

I didn't get to see the game. I heard there were some calls, and while that seems to usually be the case with the Pats, I can't muster to energy to get to upset over the Steelers. They cry every time they lose and they have a SB ring of their own that the refs gave them.

[aaron11]

23 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Welp, I don't know what else to say.  What I see, frame by frame, is his right hand losing grasp, with the ball then laying loose on the ground, between his hands, but out of his "grasp".

 

Here's the larger issue, if you are of the opinion that the current rule needs to be changed, how do you redefine what is a catch?

 

I think we can all agree that if a player is on his feet, makes the catch, controlling the ball in his hands, and then takes two (or is it three?) steps, then we have a catch.  When in the act of catching the ball, but not taking steps, ergo, due to either momentum or being hit, he is falling to the ground, how do you define the catch in that instance?  Can you come up with a better written definition?

 

I will tell you the thing about the catch in the Pitt / NE game, to my eyes, even though Jesse James had taken no steps and was therefore deemed as going to the ground during the act of catching, I saw the ball clearly secured in his hands, with his body twisting and his hands then reaching out with the ball in an attempt to break the plane of the goal line.  At this point in time, it was, imho, indisputable that he had full control of the ball!  

 

So, to allow for the above situation, where he clearly has full control of the ball, do you propose going back to the old way that the ground cannot cause a fumble?

 

I have to admit, I am a little bit torn on this one.  In one way, as in the Jesse James example, it sure looks to me like he clearly made the catch with control, before hitting the ground.  But by the same token, I think it's pretty jitty that when a guy is on the way to the ground upon attempting to make a catch, that if when he hits the ground and the ball flies out of his hand, that it might still be deemed a catch.

 

So perhaps the solution is found in the definition of what is a "football move".  Again with the Jesse James example, to my eyes, he DID make a football move, by virtue of changing the trajectory of his arms and hands while holding the ball ... ergo, in reaching out with his hands, with the ball clearly under his control in so doing, he did indeed make a "football move".  Changing this rule, though, might just make things even MORE subjective.  Hence, like I originally posted, this sort of thing is a sticky wicket.

its not that hard to fix

 

the two step rule would be a good start.  

 

if they go to the ground before two steps, its a catch if they are down by contact and dont lose the ball.  i dont think bobbling it a little is losing the ball.   losing it means its out of your arms entirly and you dont just come back up with it 

 

 

[aaron11]

it would be an interesting poll for the league and fans

 

should they make the catch rule simpler/change it?

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 12/18/2017 at 10:42 AM, DougDew said:

I agree.  He crossed the plane with full possession, both feet on the ground and the ball secured.  The play should stop as soon as he crosses the plane.  

 

The rule as it stands now makes no sense.   Just like the tuck rule years ago. 

 

So NE either cheats or is lucky.  Take away that and they might have won one superbowl in the Brady years.

This is correct, basically James dove for the the goal line making an athletic play, honestly he didn't even have to but the ball crossed the plane of the goal line!! Its like diving with the ball extended in one hand as many receivers do over the the goal line and the ball becomes dislodged. I thought it was a TD personally!!

[King Colt]

All a receiver has to do is complete the process as the rules call it and all will be quiet on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[ColtsBlueFL]

The catch rule was instituted and tweaked, and all the while HD, then UltraHD and super slo-mo hi-res cameras and displays have revolutionized the scrutiny of these calls.  It wasn't all that long ago that a call was made and video replay often offered little hard evidence to overturn.  Now days, these calls can be easily overturned because multi-angle UltraHD cameras in ultra slo-motion replay in ultra high resolution.  Things not readily apparent in real time (even to seasoned Refs) now shine through.  The problem wasn't the call (actually, overturning the call) isn't the problem.  The problem is their tweaked rule is now reaping unintended consequences.  The rule needs tweaked once more by the competition committee.

 

I have now hear multiple coaches say they Do_Not_Teach their players to reach, stretch, dive, etc.. to the plane of the goal when receiving.  Why?  What happens all of the time when receivers not established yet as a runner and try to do that before truly securing the ball and running it in.  By diving/stretching etc the player(s) risks losing control of the ball and it touching the ground at some point ( 'not surviving the ground' is the new catch phrase) and thus an incompletion.  Coaches would rather have the ball at the 1 than a heroic effort resulting in a mundane incompletion.  And they know this and discourage that activity, yet players continue to do it.  In addition, coaches stress they also need to make sure it never touches the ground, or they don't lose control and cross out of bounds or end zone line before re-securing possession; even if it never touched the ground during the process.

 

IOW, players are warned to take what is given, secure the ball first, forego the heroic effort effort if necessary.  But, players just can't/won't do it.  Until the rule is tweaked, they will do it or suffer the occasional disappointment of an 'apparent' catch taken away.  No excuses.  All coaches and players know the drill now. Pick your poison.

 

While I personally feel this rule needs adjustment, I'm more upset with the rule that fumbling out of bounds through the end zone gives the opposition the ball and 20 yards to boot.  I feel if a ball is fumbled and it goes out of bounds, the offensive possessing team either gets it where it went out of bounds, or (in the case it going out somewhere in the end zone) where control of the ball was lost.  Why does the D get it?  They never got possession of it. They might not even have done anything to deserve it (loss of control without contact).  Because of this, even established runners have issues being heroic trying for the TD by stretching, reaching, or diving with the ball out to cross the plane. Sometimes, whether receiver or runner, it is better to take what you can securely get and live to play another play.

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, rockywoj said:

{snip}

 

"I know the rules," the New York Giants quarterback told the New York Post about the seemingly perplexing catch canon.

 

"I was watching the game live, you see it, and it doesn't look like an incompletion at all," Manning explained his processing of the James catch/non-catch. "Once they slow it down and see him going to the ground and the ball hitting the ground, incompletion.

 

"You hate it, when you're watching it live, you don't even think about that not being a catch," he said. "When they run it down, hey, when you go to the ground you got to finish with the ball in your hand. When it hits the ground and there's movement, I was like, 'I think that's enough evidence where they're gonna reverse that.'"

 

While others scratch their heads trying to reconcile the catch rule, Manning believes the line is bright yellow. The Big Blue quarterback pointed to a Sterling Shepard touchdown being ruled incomplete earlier this year as evidence for the consistency of the calls.

 

"I think it is clear what a catch is," he said. "Especially when you're going to the ground, you got to control the ball the whole time. You got to have it. If the ball hits the ground, you're going to the ground, the ball moves or hits the ground and there's a little loss of contact through the end of the play, it's gonna be an incompletion."

 

................

 

I agree with Eli, I think the play is clear as day, in slow motion.  The bobble is not noticeable in normal speed (fast motion), but in slow mo, it is pretty darn clear cut.

 

 

 

^^^ This  ^^^

 

I agree and just posted as such.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

This is correct, basically James dove for the the goal line making an athletic play, honestly he didn't even have to but the ball crossed the plane of the goal line!! Its like diving with the ball extended in one hand as many receivers do over the the goal line and the ball becomes dislodged. I thought it was a TD personally!!

 

When a receiver has not established themselves as a runner, the end zone goal line and out of bounds line does not stop the play and negate the requirement to maintain possession all throughout the process.  The player is also still considered 'defenseless' and rendered the protections thereof.

 

Coaches are now telling their players to 'not' make the athletic play and get control and keep it first.  They would rather have the yards then see a remarkable play reversed because hi-res imaging shows a minimal loss of possession and it grazing the ground before full control is regained.  Not worth it to coaches and they go on NFL radio and say as such.  Coaches/players are finally now familiar with the rules, and the risks.

[BOTT]

7 hours ago, aaron11 said:

it would be an interesting poll for the league and fans

 

should they make the catch rule simpler/change it?

It's pretty simple now.  Complete the catch all the way to the ground. 

[jvan1973]

On 12/18/2017 at 10:16 AM, Pacergeek said:

I'm not buying it that the Patriots are SB contenders every single year on their own. In a league where winning and losing teams fluctuate season by season, the Patriots are always good. Even when they suffer significant injuries, the Patriots continue winning. I understand that they have possibly the GOAT HC and QB. Other teams have HOF QB's, smart HC, and they have losing seasons. Also, every single controversial call benefits NE. All of the winning, and benefiting from controversy cannot be a coincidence. Some shenanigans are obviously going on here behind the scenes, and I'm no longer going to support a crooked organization like the NFL

See ya

[Finball]

On 19.12.2017 at 5:00 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Lets just face the facts without the Manning's being in the Playoffs it is the Patriots world. Peyton 3-1 vs Brady in Title games and Eli 2-0 in SB's. Without those 2 guys the Pats may have 10 SB wins by now?

 

It's possible but I don't think Pats would have won in '13 and '15. They got stomped do badly in '13 against the Broncos and were re-tooling their defense and had only Edelman and Amendola as good, somewhat healthy receivers in.playoffs.

 

I think they'd lose to Carolina in Super Bowl 50. Pats were badly banged up with a bad offensive line (Scar had retired but came back the following year). Panthers had great Oline with one weakness; Remmers against speed rushers. But Pats didn't have any speed rushers. Belichick vs Shula is an obvious mismatch but Pats probably didn't have the horses to win that Super Bowl.

 

And fatigue/complacency would set in at some point.. I don't think they'd have won every SB the last 4 years even without Peyton.

[2006Coltsbestever]

43 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

It's possible but I don't think Pats would have won in '13 and '15. They got stomped do badly in '13 against the Broncos and were re-tooling their defense and had only Edelman and Amendola as good, somewhat healthy receivers in.playoffs.

 

I think they'd lose to Carolina in Super Bowl 50. Pats were badly banged up with a bad offensive line (Scar had retired but came back the following year). Panthers had great Oline with one weakness; Remmers against speed rushers. But Pats didn't have any speed rushers. Belichick vs Shula is an obvious mismatch but Pats probably didn't have the horses to win that Super Bowl.

 

And fatigue/complacency would set in at some point.. I don't think they'd have won every SB the last 4 years even without Peyton.

I think they beat Carolina but I will give you 2013 Seattle, Seattle was a monster that season. Pats would've beat Chicago as well in 2006.

[Chrisaaron1023]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think they beat Carolina but I will give you 2013 Seattle, Seattle was a monster that season. Pats would've beat Chicago as well in 2006.

Oh I think Carolina would've finished off the Pats as well. Cam is the type of QB that beats new england mobile and not relaying on timing only. The Broncos rushed him to death.. Patriots couldn't do that.

[BloodyChamp]

Ok I'm going to back up a little bit because of the latest Pats spat involving Brady's doctor. He says he has the cure for cancer and concussions. I mean really what is going on with the Patriots???

[shakedownstreet]

NEVER try to reason with conspiracy theorists on the internet! 

[Nadine]

Just now, shakedownstreet said:

NEVER try to reason with conspiracy theorists on the internet! 

or in real life.  My sister is one of these and she absolutely never stops talking about these theories.

Can't get a word in edgewise to either agree or disagree

[jameszeigler834]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:44 AM, DougDew said:

The Patriots gave up a game winning 80 yard touchdown drive in 2 plays.  A fluke elbow dislodging the ball is why they won.

 

If the fix was in, then God himself rigged it, not the NFL.

 

But I became much less interested in the NFL after ESPN came up with the phony QBR rating in order to justify the performances of the QBs it wanted to promote.

That was the worst call.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, jameszeigler834 said:

That was the worst call.

Yeah, it was bad, but I think its what the rule says.  

[JimJaime]

On 12/18/2017 at 12:18 PM, Pacergeek said:

Patriots do a lot of stupid things too, and they are allowed to get away with it. I think on the go-ahead TD, their RB was supposed to go down before crossing the end zone, causing Pitt to burn their last time out. Also, on the catch and run from JuJu, NE players ran into each other, instead of forcing JuJu out of bounds, thus causing a big play. 

Every team makes mistakes, the example of the two defenders running into eachother is a good one.. but Lewis was NOT suppose to dive at the one and make Pitt use a timeout. You score period as you don't know if you will on the next play or not (a fumbled snap or stuffed run and it's 3rd and goal..)

[JimJaime]

2 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

Ok I'm going to back up a little bit because of the latest Pats spat involving Brady's doctor. He says he has the cure for cancer and concussions. I mean really what is going on with the Patriots???

First he is a quake not a DR. Second the cure for cancer was years ago and the FDA slamed him for it. All that's happening now is BB is limiting his access so the entire team knows he is NOT affiliated with the team.

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, it was bad, but I think its what the rule says.  

That rule is crap too.

[JimJaime]

On 12/19/2017 at 10:41 AM, King Colt said:

During the very long review of the play the Steelers did not huddle to plan their strategy for the remaining seconds. Belichik would have in that circumstance. On top of that the Steelers go with a slot receiver (not the tallest on the squad) on a slant route in triple coverage. Hoody says "more games are lost than are not won" and that applies to this game. Don't count the Steelers out even in Gillette Stadium. They ran through the Pts like they were pudding.

Also expect a full game of Brady to Gronk as well. They looked like they were playing catch by the end of the game. In a rematch Gronk has 300 yards and a minimum of 2 TDs. 

[BloodyChamp]

3 hours ago, JimJaime said:

First he is a quake not a DR. Second the cure for cancer was years ago and the FDA slamed him for it. All that's happening now is BB is limiting his access so the entire team knows he is NOT affiliated with the team.

 

And I wasn't adfiliated with the marriage. I was just in bed with the wife.

[tvturner]

These calls happen all the time. Just because it's the Patriots it doesn't make it even different. Quit complaining

[ReMeDy]

I will say though everyone has to find it a funny coincidence that almost every starting QB on every team has gotten knocked out... except the 40 yr old man... the same 40 yr old man Belichick refuses to bench even when his team's heavily up on points.

[BloodyChamp]

There was another starting QB who played til 40 and it seemed like the league was trying to knock him out for the last 5 years or so. I mean there are just some things that make you say what the actual *.

[JimJaime]

12 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

I will say though everyone has to find it a funny coincidence that almost every starting QB on every team has gotten knocked out... except the 40 yr old man... the same 40 yr old man Belichick refuses to bench even when his team's heavily up on points.

Brady says it is because he knows how to fall so he does not get himself hurt. If this is the case he should teach it to every damn QB in the NFL.  But illegal roids etc will not help that heck I believe a lot actually lead you to getting hurt.

[ReMeDy]

I forgot also that same 40 year old man likes to still do QB sneaks.

[Reality Check]

While the rule does not pass the "common sense" test for most of who have followed football for many years, it was applied correctly in this case based on the "must survive the ground" aspect of the process.

 

For many of us, it stings a little more because the pats benefitted in this case.  The reality here is that this rule comes into play almost every single week in the NFL.  When the stakes are not as high and/or the teams involved are not contenders, it goes largely unnoticed by most fans.

 

A couple other things to consider after reading this thread:

 

- NFL Competition Committee: In response to the call in the Pats/Steelers game, let's remember that the Steelers HC (Tomlin) is one of the 11 members who is on the committee. This committee has "refined" the rule since the Dallas/GB playoff fiasco a couple years ago.   https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/the-nfl-competition-committee/

 

- Steelers failed to execute at situational football:  We have seen a number of teams melt down at critical points of big games vs NE.  This is just the latest example.  Despite having nearly 5 minutes to put a plan together (while JJ's TD was being reviewed), post game comments and NFL sideline video highlights the fact the Steelers were a hot mess during this entire time.  Anyone who feels this is part of a bigger conspiracy theory must also admit that the STEELERS had to have been part of the conspiracy...based on their decisions & approach to the final 2 minutes of the game.

 

- Let's not lose our heads over this:  While many NFL fans suggest things like #boycotttheNFL, games are rigged for NE to win, etc..., we need to avoid being swept up by our own emotions.  The fact of the matter is that the NFL office spent ~$20mil to prosecute TB & the Pats to the tune of 4 games suspended, loss of 1st rd. pick, and $1mil fine.  Roger Goodell calls the shots and has gone to extreme lengths to punish NE when given the opportunity.

 

As an avid NFL fan, I am not sure of the answer to this rule.  I am old enough to remember the days prior to instant replay.  We could do away with all these complexities as well as replay and just let "common sense" rule the games, but I think we would all agree that would be a disaster given the coverage/views we are privy to.  I remember the Mike Renfro controversial call in the 1980 AFC Title game and do NOT want to re-visit those days!

 

[NannyMcafee]

On 12/18/2017 at 11:35 AM, PeterBowman said:

I will say the OP does bring up one valid point and I mentioned it in the game thread.

 

New England seems to always be the beneficiaries of these controversial calls. And they're always at critical moments of the game. I can't remember the last time that they've been the victim of them.

 

My father believes the same thing. It's hard to argue against it. Especially when your only argument is to claim they wear a tinfoil hat. I for one believe that they are most definitely the favorites in any given game... 

 

i would at least respect the orginization if they hadn't been caught cheating so many times. Just makes it hard for me to do so. If no cheating was involved, their accomplishments are quite amazing. If no cheating was involved.