Officals told Pagano he couldn't challenge the "blocked" punt....turns out he could have.

[Dustin]

Via Chappell on twitter.

Cherry on top of the terrible "officiating" last night.

[t-rex]

Wow!

 

These officials need to be reprimanded. 

[NewEra]

Id like to Terry Tate the whole lot of them!

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

The refs were inconsistent to say the least last night

[Dustin]

The refs were inconsistent to say the least last night

They were consistent.....consistently bad.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Wow!

 

These officials need to be reprimanded. 

At least they were horrible to both teams, even though I say we still got the most of it.

[BOTT]

Those replacement refs were just horrible.....horrible I say.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

They were consistent.....consistently bad.

When Collinsworth is arguing a call by the refs that went AGAINST the Colts, then you know it was a bad call.

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

At least they were horrible to both teams, even though I say we still got the most of it.

All the calls on the Texans were officially right calls (it wasn't a catch, luck was pushed, and reed hit hilton after the play). They just aren't called all the time but they were the right call. The non calls on the Colts should have been calls by the rule book. So imo no calls really went our way

[hawkeyes]

All the calls on the Texans were officially right calls (it wasn't a catch, luck was pushed, and reed hit hilton after the play). They just aren't called all the time but they were the right call. The non calls on the Colts should have been calls by the rule book. So imo no calls really went our way

 

100% agree - I believe the calls that went against the Texans were actually made correctly and the others against the Colts were made totally incorrectly including a reversal that showed NO conclusive evidence... luckily the Colts pulled the game out!

[ColtsLegacy]

Hopefully this terribly refereed game is enough to keep this referee team out of the playoffs.

[In Luck We Trust]

The punt and the fumble was a bad call by the refs. Colts should have kept the ball on the blocked punt and that KR for a fumble on Houston should have been Colts ball just as well as the ball never changed its course of direction. both times the colts were hosed and the Texans then Scored a touchdown or FG on both failed calls. 

[The Fish]

Those replacement refs were just horrible.....horrible I say.

Did you get the "vapors" watching them?

[Dark Superman]

George Bush was present at the game.. Probably paid the refs off..

[BOTT]

Did you get the "vapors" watching them?

I wasn't overly critical of the scabs. I figured how worse can they be compared to over weight 60 year old men wearing bifocals.

[HtownColt]

Man those refs were bad for both teams, at least they weren't playing favorites, they were bad down the middle

[Superman]

At least they were horrible to both teams, even though I say we still got the most of it.

 

What bad calls went against the Texans?

[BPM_Colt]

Thought both teams got screwed on some big time calls last night.

 

The fumble recovery by us was flat out ridiculous that it was overturned.. If anything you say it is inconclusive and the play stands

 

The Johnson catch we challenged.. I felt like it was a catch. Thought he completed the act of catching the pass and then had it knocked out after he was laying out of bounds.

 

Games like this is why I never complained much about the replacements.. These refs can be just as bad

[PrincetonTiger]

It was a bad game for the refs

[hawkeyes]

The Johnson catch we challenged.. I felt like it was a catch. Thought he completed the act of catching the pass and then had it knocked out after he was laying out of bounds.

 

I thought the rule states you must maintain complete control when going to the ground through the entire process... he went to the ground and the ball was not fully controlled - it could clearly be seen moving... that call was correct IMO,

 

The call against us was absolutely horrible - borderline crooked, because there was absolutely no evidence at all in any view that amounted to conclusive overturning evidence. 

[Smonroe]

I thought the rule states you must maintain complete control when going to the ground through the entire process... he went to the ground and the ball was not fully controlled - it could clearly be seen moving... that call was correct IMO,

 

The call against us was absolutely horrible - borderline crooked, because there was absolutely no evidence at all in any view that amounted to conclusive overturning evidence.

Actually, I think the refs got it right. But not by what they said. It looked like Brazil's finger touched the ball while he was out of bounds. No way his leg touched it. I don't think the refs knew why they were right.

If it's true they told Pagano he couldn't challenge that punt, they need to be disciplined. I get that they missed the play and thought the ball was touched. But to not allow Pagano to look at it is ridiculous. That could have changed the game early.

[Nobody]

What bad calls went against the Texans?

probably means the AJ drop on 3rd down, which was, by the book, a good call.

[Superman]

probably means the AJ drop on 3rd down, which was, by the book, a good call.

 

Yes, it absolutely was a good call. That's the call that people get all fussy about about ten times a year, but the NFL has been calling it that way pretty consistently for about four years now. 

[Tark The Shark]

Yeah, the refs missed some huge calls in that game. The hit on McAfee and the foot play by Brazill was the biggest missed calls. 

[bap1331]

Well we won and that's what matters...

We can worry about that on the next one... Loll

[HtownColt]

What bad calls went against the Texans?

That roughing the passer call when Luck was throwing and running toward the sideline, he was still in bounds and the hit was simultaneous.

Depending on what side you are on, the Andre Johnson catch

[ruksak]

To be fair; That call on roughing Luck was horrible. You're not out of bounds until you land.....OUT OF BOUNDS. 

 

We, as fans, need to start raising a fuss about this overzealous QB protection. Thank you, NFL for providing a more exciting product, but there's a line. It's going too far. 

 

I honestly do not feel I'm exaggerating when I say this; We're now 1 short step away from declaring the QB down on contact, incapable of being hit... i.e. Touch Football on the QB. It has escalated to that point. It must stop. Actually, we need to revert a bit.

 

I watched a bit of the Saints game. Twice the Jets were flagged for roughing Brees. Once for a slight, grazing swipe of his helmet, again for a "low-hit" that the announcers properly described as not being in the restricted zone. The hit was to Drew's thighs.

 

They've improved their passing product so much that's it's ruining the product as a whole.  

[jameszeigler834]

Via Chappell on twitter.

Cherry on top of the terrible "officiating" last night.

Ya your telling me that Ref was terrible. and should be fired just for not knowing what he was doing.

[Superman]

To be fair; That call on roughing Luck was horrible. You're not out of bounds until you land.....OUT OF BOUNDS. 

 

We, as fans, need to start raising a fuss about this overzealous QB protection. Thank you, NFL for providing a more exciting product, but there's a line. It's going too far. 

 

I honestly do not feel I'm exaggerating when I say this; We're now 1 short step away from declaring the QB down on contact, incapable of being hit... i.e. Touch Football on the QB. It has escalated to that point. It must stop. Actually, we need to revert a bit.

 

I watched a bit of the Saints game. Twice the Jets were flagged for roughing Brees. Once for a slight, grazing swipe of his helmet, again for a "low-hit" that the announcers properly described as not being in the restricted zone. The hit was to Drew's thighs.

 

They've improved their passing product so much that's it's ruining the product as a whole.  

 

The roughing call was by the book. Can't hit the quarterback when he's headed out of bounds. It sucks because the quarterback can use that to his advantage, just like the protection he gets in the pocket from late hits. We've all seen defenders pull up from blasting the quarterback because of a pump fake.

 

You obviously don't like the rule as it is, along with some others. I understand your point, and to an extent I agree with you. But at least the roughing call was made correctly, according to the rule. You're talking about a potential rules change, not a blown call by the refs.

[Jason_]

To be fair; That call on roughing Luck was horrible. You're not out of bounds until you land.....OUT OF BOUNDS. 

 

We, as fans, need to start raising a fuss about this overzealous QB protection. Thank you, NFL for providing a more exciting product, but there's a line. It's going too far. 

 

I honestly do not feel I'm exaggerating when I say this; We're now 1 short step away from declaring the QB down on contact, incapable of being hit... i.e. Touch Football on the QB. It has escalated to that point. It must stop. Actually, we need to revert a bit.

 

I watched a bit of the Saints game. Twice the Jets were flagged for roughing Brees. Once for a slight, grazing swipe of his helmet, again for a "low-hit" that the announcers properly described as not being in the restricted zone. The hit was to Drew's thighs.

 

They've improved their passing product so much that's it's ruining the product as a whole.  

 

I agree with you almost completely.  The roughing call was technically right as to the letter of the rule, but it's horrible imo that it is a penalty.  Like Superman said, Qb's can and will use that type of call to their advantage.  Heck RG3 already has admitted that he does it.  

[Superman]

That roughing the passer call when Luck was throwing and running toward the sideline, he was still in bounds and the hit was simultaneous.

Depending on what side you are on, the Andre Johnson catch

 

The quarterback gets protection when he's headed out of bounds. Might not like the rule, but that's the rule.

 

As for the AJ non catch, I agree that your interpretation might depend on what side you're on. But the correct call was made, again, according to the rules. The player has to maintain control of the ball if he's going to the ground to make the catch. Johnson was still sliding on his back when he lost control of the ball, and since he was out of bounds, it's a dead ball when he loses control of it. 

[hawkeyes]

Actually, I think the refs got it right. But not by what they said. It looked like Brazil's finger touched the ball while he was out of bounds. No way his leg touched it. I don't think the refs knew why they were right.

If it's true they told Pagano he couldn't challenge that punt, they need to be disciplined. I get that they missed the play and thought the ball was touched. But to not allow Pagano to look at it is ridiculous. That could have changed the game early.

 

looks like?  Is that conclusive evidence?   I agree they need to be disciplined - but bap has it right - WE WON!

[alawai]

I wasn't overly critical of the scabs. I figured how worse can they be compared to over weight 60 year old men wearing bifocals.

Hmmm, I'm over 60 slightly overweight, been a union member all my life, been on strike, wear bi-focals, do marathons, swim a mile twice a week and bike twice a week.  Hope you don't place me in that category!  lol!  Have a good one guys! 

[ruksak]

The roughing call was by the book. Can't hit the quarterback when he's headed out of bounds. It sucks because the quarterback can use that to his advantage, just like the protection he gets in the pocket from late hits. We've all seen defenders pull up from blasting the quarterback because of a pump fake.

 

You obviously don't like the rule as it is, along with some others. I understand your point, and to an extent I agree with you. But at least the roughing call was made correctly, according to the rule. You're talking about a potential rules change, not a blown call by the refs.

The catch to the rule; If the players current action is heading out of bounds, yes, the rule is to be enforced.

 

Andrew Luck's next move wasn't going out of bounds. His next move was to throw. The action of throwing SHOULD still qualify him as eligible to be hit. If the QB is in the action of throwing, the fact that he's heading out of bounds should be null. 

 

The refs should consider such things. 

[ruksak]

I agree with you almost completely.  The roughing call was technically right as to the letter of the rule, but it's horrible imo that it is a penalty.  Like Superman said, Qb's can and will use that type of call to their advantage.  Heck RG3 already has admitted that he does it.  

...and with this evolution of the NFL QB going toward fast, scrambling athletes, something has to be done. Otherwise, why not design a play to roll everyone out to the edge of the sideline? Then the QB could stand there and dare anyone to hit him as he goes through his progressions. 

 

As I said in my above post, the rule SHOULD have a qualifier that if the QB is engaging in the action of a throw while heading/leaping out of bounds, he should still be eligible to be hit. 

 

To me, this is more about protecting their investments in these $120 million dollar QB's than it has to do with the quality of the product. Any * can see that the quality is being diminished with these QB protection rules.

 

Solution; Don't pay them that much. No man is worth that coin. 

 

The sack is one of the most exciting aspects of football, and it's time we stood up for the defensive side of our game. Soon, a sack will be a touch, flag football on the QB....essentially. 

[ColtsLegacy]

The catch to the rule; If the players current action is heading out of bounds, yes, the rule is to be enforced.

Andrew Luck's next move wasn't going out of bounds. His next move was to throw. The action of throwing SHOULD still qualify him as eligible to be hit. If the QB is in the action of throwing, the fact that he's heading out of bounds should be null.

The refs should consider such things.

While I agree it's a pretty dumb rule, the refs can't just make up the rules as they go along. As the rule stands, there is nothing to consider on that play. It was roughing.

[Superman]

The catch to the rule; If the players current action is heading out of bounds, yes, the rule is to be enforced.

 

Andrew Luck's next move wasn't going out of bounds. His next move was to throw. The action of throwing SHOULD still qualify him as eligible to be hit. If the QB is in the action of throwing, the fact that he's heading out of bounds should be null. 

 

The refs should consider such things. 

 

The quarterback was simultaneously going out of bounds and throwing the ball. He's protected, according to the rules. 

 

I could see changing the rule so that if the quarterback is throwing, he's not protected against being hit. Still shouldn't be hit low or in the head, but if he's going out of bounds while throwing, the defender ought to be able to hit him.

 

But again, that's a rules change. According to the current rule, it was called correctly.

[ruksak]

While I agree it's a pretty dumb rule, the refs can't just make up the rules as they go along. As the rule stands, there is nothing to consider on that play. It was roughing.

Discretion is part of their job. 

 

To me, it would seem fair for the ref, in that particular circumstance, to consider that Luck wasn't heading out of bounds (essentially a declaration of downing the ball on spot). Luck was leaping to make a throw. That was his action at the time of impact, correct? 

 

All eligible receivers are also eligible passers behind the LoS. If that's a HB/WR pass, no way they call it. No way. There's your discretionary intervention upon a rule. 

[Superman]

...and with this evolution of the NFL QB going toward fast, scrambling athletes, something has to be done. Otherwise, why not design a play to roll everyone out to the edge of the sideline? Then the QB could stand there and dare anyone to hit him as he goes through his progressions. 

 

As I said in my above post, the rule SHOULD have a qualifier that if the QB is engaging in the action of a throw while heading/leaping out of bounds, he should still be eligible to be hit. 

 

To me, this is more about protecting their investments in these $120 million dollar QB's than it has to do with the quality of the product. Any * can see that the quality is being diminished with these QB protection rules.

 

Solution; Don't pay them that much. No man is worth that coin. 

 

The sack is one of the most exciting aspects of football, and it's time we stood up for the defensive side of our game. Soon, a sack will be a touch, flag football on the QB....essentially. 

 

Meh. A football player is most vulnerable when throwing and catching the ball, thus the recent emphasis on protecting passers and pass catchers, particularly when they are passing and catching. If you want players to be able to throw and catch the ball without being destroyed, certain protections make sense.

 

Others are overboard, like the forcible helmet contact to the quarterback. Seems pointless to me.

 

But anyways, this is an ongoing debate, balancing the quality of the game with the safety of the players. No one is ever truly satisfied. Either the NFL is watering down the game in the name of safety, or they're being called out for not doing enough to protect the players. It's a lose/lose. I think they'd rather err on the side of caution.

[Superman]

Discretion is part of their job. 

 

To me, it would seem fair for the ref, in that particular circumstance, to consider that Luck wasn't heading out of bounds (essentially a declaration of downing the ball on spot). Luck was leaping to make a throw. That was his action at the time of impact, correct? 

 

All eligible receivers are also eligible passers behind the LoS. If that's a HB/WR pass, no way they call it. No way. There's your discretionary intervention upon a rule. 

 

The NFL has made changes to rules in recent years specifically to reduce the use of discretion on the part of the officials, to remove subjectivity from the rule book as much as possible. You're suggesting the opposite.