Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

We just got robbed!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

oh shut up.  i said what i know to be true.  I am not going to do your homework for you.  Tripplett said after the CIN debacle that he only reviewed the goaline.  Look it up yourself.  Second, do you really not know that the coaches and analysts are not to talk crap about officials???  i said nothing that needs proven to anyone with an average football IQ.  You are proving in this thread that you are lacking.   You originally were saying this was incomplete for the same reasons the Calvin Johnson TD play when he went to the ground VS the bears was incomplete. 

 

 YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU KEEP QUOTE MIKE PEREIRA THINKING IT PROVES SOMETHING.  IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!   

 

It's claim of fact, your burden of proof.  Not on me to prove your point. But being nice, I tried anyway and found a link, but they pulled the video.  It's a conspiracy! Right?

 

Next, you claim my explanations were unrelated and then you go talk about calls in previous games.  You can't have it both ways. (besides, there was no definitive replay showing Chapman tripping the runner, just looked very possible.  I thought I had a shot where his hand tripped a foot, and another said no it was the other foot, Someone else said overhead shot was only decent angle, but they never showed that much. Shows there's not clear cut replay for an overturn.  But I thought it was down by contact)

 

Then you state:  You originally were saying this was incomplete for the same reasons the Calvin Johnson TD play when he went to the ground VS the bears was incomplete. 

 

Not true!  Here is my first post on the subject.  I continue to stick by that until someone shows me a video of the dude taking 3 steps with the ball completely secure before getting it knocked out. I'll change my mind.  Until then, try to muster some reading comprehension and get back to me on the content.  http://forums.colts.com/topic/24481-we-just-got-robbed/#entry684306

 

Hint: Ref judged he had juggled the ball so never had full possession.    That is the point of dispute on this play that replay had to prove wrong.

 

The only reason the Johnson thing was even mentioned  was to try to illustrate (not very well, apparently) that what appears to be a catch or possession isn't always what fans think.  Neither player was deemed to be in possession, or complete the catch,  and their pass incomplete.  One the ground knocked it loose, the other an opponent.  But fans think both were a catch.  So this disparity between what fans think and refs call is a disconnect in interpreting the rules and judgement.  I did not nean to invoke the 'going to the ground part, but without explaining it well, I can see it being inferred by some.

 

You tend to distort items to create a straw man. So, you are also more credible than the former VP of Officiating?  Get real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a video or .gif shoeing that, with firm control/possession of the football?  I showed two refs simultaneously signalling Incomplete from two distincltly different angles, and the one went further and made the juggling (not in control of the ball) motions.  You have to show proof that did NOT happen (have firm proof the ball was not moving as in maybe not in full control)  in order for 3 steps, football moves (no such thing anymore in the rules for the last few years), dancing with the stars or anything else comes into play.. And I saw in real time it was a bang-bang play. You don't get ban=bang plays when someone gets 3 steps.  Former Vice President of NFL officiating agrees-

 

That was a bang-bang play in KC - in real time, you have to stay with the call there.

 

So not everybody sees it the same. I wonder what folks here would be saying about that play if that was TY Hilton getting the ball knocked out. I already know the answer to that,I fear.

It was a fumble. He had control. And yes I have it on game pass, and watched it several times. You are wrong. Totally wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a fumble. He had control. And yes I have it on game pass, and watched it several times. You are wrong. Totally wrong.

 Well I have NFL rewind, but I'm waiting for someone to show me... but no one has so now I will have to find time to go in rewind and do a frame by frame.  Don't know what I'll find but in real time, and in slo-mo  replay on DVR I kind of sided with Refs.  If rewind on my PC shows me  the ball didn't move any at all and he had clear control and possession and had become a runner,  as the catch had been completed, I'll admit it.  but if not... well ...

 

I'll also document those 3 full steps (or lack of) people have been adamant about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I said the refs were incorrect. You wrote a response....just to have a response.

 

However, that's not all you said.  Are you sure you didn't add this?  

 

".that's why they have replay. "

 

And that comment is what my question addressed, rhetorical though it may seem to be, it does have an answer.  Does replay always correct the wrongs in real time? 

 

{Now you have another chance to answer and address the above}

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, that's not all you said.  Are you sure you didn't add this?  

 

".that's why they have replay. "

 

And that comment is what my question addressed, rhetorical though it may seem to be, it does have an answer.  Does replay always correct the wrongs in real time? 

 

{Now you have another chance to answer and address the above}

No, but that wasn't my point. I found his comment bizarre. On a bang bang play why would they go with the old dudes on the field wearing bi focals instead of replay where you can look at it multiple times. That makes no sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but that wasn't my point. I found his comment bizarre. On a bang bang play why would they go with the old dudes on the field wearing bi focals instead of replay where you can look at it multiple times. That makes no sense to me.

 

It's definitely a blurry line, but the reason for replay is to correct clearly wrong plays. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the replay couldn't overturn the call on the field, maybe hat suggests you are the one mistaken? Could it be? Could you be wrwrwrwrwrong?

Oh replay is infallible now?

I guess the NFL was wrong when they said they messed up the Bengles TD against us, after they reviewed it. Weird....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the replay couldn't overturn the call on the field, maybe hat suggests you are the one mistaken? Could it be? Could you be wrwrwrwrwrong?

 

And one could say that if everyone that saw the same play as you and everyone but one or two think that you are wrwrwrwrong, maybe that suggests that you are mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely a blurry line, but the reason for replay is to correct clearly wrong plays.

I get that. It was a close play, but it thought it was clear. Not that kind of call I'm going to lose sleep over however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And one could say that if everyone that saw the same play as you and everyone but one or two think that you are wrwrwrwrong, maybe that suggests that you are mistaken.

When the final result is not what all many wanted, maybe some are simply looking at it theough homer glasses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the final result is not what all many wanted, maybe some are simply looking at it theough homer glasses?

 

It seems to me that many unbiased people (i.e. analysts, former players) that commented on it also said that the ref got it wrong.  Which still leaves just you and a couple of others.  It seems less plausible that >98% of the people that saw that play are wrong but the < 2%, like yourself, are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that many unbiased people (i.e. analysts, former players) that commented on it also said that the ref got it wrong.  Which still leaves just you and a couple of others.  It seems less plausible that >98% of the people that saw that play are wrong but the < 2%, like yourself, are correct.

I'll stick with the reality of the situation. 

 

Liker I said. I can understan why the replay did not overturn the call on the field.  These things happen.  Sometimes one needs to live with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TeamLoloJones

I am completely objestive here.  I don't view events with the prejudiced homer bias.  I can see why things happen the way they did.

Neither do I.  Neither do a lot of good posters on here.  But you for some reason you seem to want to attack anyone that says anything that could be even be considered homerism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely objestive here. I don't view events with the prejudiced homer bias. I can see why things happen the way they did.

What's the meaning of life? Guide me oh great Shepard. Lead the blind who cannot see the way without your wisdom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the meaning of life? Guide me oh great Shepard. Lead the blind who cannot see the way without your wisdom.

There is no universal meaning of life.  Life means different things to different people.  To me, life is about having as much fun as possible for as long as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither do I.  Neither do a lot of good posters on here.  But you for some reason you seem to want to attack anyone that says anything that could be even be considered homerism.

I can see most people here are just like most everywwhere.  They have their bias and let their objectivity get tainted a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that many unbiased people (i.e. analysts, former players) that commented on it also said that the ref got it wrong.  Which still leaves just you and a couple of others.  It seems less plausible that >98% of the people that saw that play are wrong but the < 2%, like yourself, are correct.

Honestly, there are very few unbiased people out there.  Analysts included.  The only truly unbiased, or the least biased analyst I can identify is John Clayton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TeamLoloJones

I can see most people here are just like most everywwhere.  They have their bias and let their objectivity get tainted a bit.

You are just like most trolls.  You bring nothing to the table besides your displeasure with how the very people you are conversing with are conducting the forum in which you somehow find yourself entitled to reign over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no universal meaning of life. Life means different things to different people. To me, life is about having as much fun as possible for as long as possible.

The correct answer is 42. Sorry. You are not the one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just like most trolls.  You bring nothing to the table besides your displeasure with how the very people you are conversing with are conducting the forum in which you somehow find yourself entitled to reign over.

Why is it that when someone can't respond to a differing opinion, they automaticall go into insult mode?  Is that just an internet thing?

 

Also, in your attempt to look intelligent, you just made yourself look foolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that when someone can't respond to a differing opinion, they automaticall go into insult mode? Is that just an internet thing?

you still haven't sited specific incidents in the game that made it the most one sided you have ever seen

Link to post
Share on other sites

you still haven't sited specific incidents in the game that made it the most one sided you have ever seen

The timliness of the penalties.  Plus the penalties themselves.  A horse-collar which wasn't, the taunting which wasn't.  Vitually every penalty the Chiefs had took away a momentum building play. 

 

I don't know why you are having such a difficult time coming to grips with it.  That game was just another example of the type of officiating we have seen over and over in nearly every game this season.

 

And the officiating has nothing to do with bias or fixing games so to speak. Officials get caught up in the game.  They develop tunnel vision and start looking for certain things instead of looking at the game as a whole/

 

In one game Sunday, I saw an offiial grab the flag in his pocket preparing to throw it while the QB was calling the signals.  When the play was run, he threw the flag.  I figured the penalty was illegal formation or some other pre snap infraction.  It was offensive holding.  Was the official omnipotent?  Did he know the left guard was going to hold before the left guard knew?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just like most trolls.  You bring nothing to the table besides your displeasure with how the very people you are conversing with are conducting the forum in which you somehow find yourself entitled to reign over.

That being said........ Merry Christmas to you too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TeamLoloJones

Why is it that when someone can't respond to a differing opinion, they automaticall go into insult mode?  Is that just an internet thing?

 

Also, in your attempt to look intelligent, you just made yourself look foolish.

I'm not the one who looks foolish here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TeamLoloJones

The timliness of the penalties.  Plus the penalties themselves.  A horse-collar which wasn't, the taunting which wasn't.  Vitually every penalty the Chiefs had took away a momentum building play. 

 

I don't know why you are having such a difficult time coming to grips with it.  That game was just another example of the type of officiating we have seen over and over in nearly every game this season.

 

And the officiating has nothing to do with bias or fixing games so to speak. Officials get caught up in the game.  They develop tunnel vision and start looking for certain things instead of looking at the game as a whole/

 

In one game Sunday, I saw an offiial grab the flag in his pocket preparing to throw it while the QB was calling the signals.  When the play was run, he threw the flag.  I figured the penalty was illegal formation or some other pre snap infraction.  It was offensive holding.  Was the official omnipotent?  Did he know the left guard was going to hold before the left guard knew?

Ummm what?  The horse collar tackle was a horse collar tackle.  His hand was inside his pads.  And how can you argue the taunting flag?  He was obviously taunting...You say none of us are being objective, but I thinks it's clear you just have no clue what you are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This kid could make things really interesting and turn that flat-butt 4-3 into something really special with corners who can press. The scheme could be really sneaky good with that personnel. 
    • I don't know who else we really need to have a bounce back year, especially on D.  Along our DL, we either need to bring back Houston and Autry or figure out how to replace them - but both had pretty solid years.  Lewis was better than he had been his first couple years.  Buckner was a stud and Stewart was solid.  Having Turay come back healthy and seeing Banogu improve would be helpful, but they both played so little last year and hadn't done enough previously to indicate last year was a 'down year'.  At LB, Leonard was a first-team all pro again and very solid.  Walker was solid but saw his snap count decrease and Oke had his ups and downs while seeing his snap count dramatically increase (as @EastStreet pointed out,  not only did his snaps go way up compared to his rookie year but the way he was used was different).  I doubt we see Walker back, so it'd be nice to see Oke improve for sure.  Then in the secondary we had solid play from Rhodes, Carrie, Willis and Moore for the most part.  Blackmon was solid (especially early on, but he seemed to digress as the year went on - IMO, to be expected as he was raw coming in and was coming off a knee injury, I don't think he was supposed to get near the snaps he did last year, but we know what happened with Hooker and sort of forced Blackmon into the fire).  RYS had a down year, but I don't see why he can't bounce back - he's got the physical traits - I tend to think he battled some mental demons after some P-Int penalties, and hopefully he can refine his technique some and come back strong.     In all, on the D, I think we're in good shape.  Keep in mind, it seemed like 'Flus called the D a bit differently last year than he had in earlier years here.  We are, overall (aside from Houston, Autry, Rhodes) very young on D.  We had a very weird off-season last year, which (IMO) is critical for younger guys.  I can't help but think it didn't help the likes of guys like RYS and Oke who saw their roles increase and change (IMO, OKe's change was more than a 'slight' change) between their rookie year and year 2.     On O, ideally we'll see solid QB play from Wentz (I won't go as far as to saying he needs a 'bounce back' year as he hasn't been in Indy before and it sounds like there was a lot of toxicity in Philly, hopefully all he needs in a change of scenery and a reunion with Reich).  Our OL was solid, so as long as we can replace AC at LT I think we'll be OK there.  We had pretty consistent play from Hines and Wilkins throughout the year and JT got dramatically better as the season wore on -- I think if those guys can start up where they left off, we're more than fine at RB.  TY didn't have his best year, but he's be declining for about 3 years now, so if we bring him back, all we can do is hope he stays healthy and I think we'll be in OK shape.  Pittman missed some time with his leg compartment syndrome, but was solid down the stretch, so I don't think we need him to 'bounce back', just continue on his trajectory and he's gonna be solid.  Pascal was solid and I think we've pretty much seen his ceiling, so he just needs to stay solid.  It would be sweet to see Campbell and/or Patmon to emerge, but don't think we need them to 'bounce back' as we've never gotten high level results from them to begin with.     Then on STs, we were pretty solid all around.  Would like to see Blankenship add a bit more umphf to his kicks, but he was solid and Sanchez was solid punting.  The coverage and return units were solid overall.   So really, I think we need a comeback or bounce back year from RYS and maybe Oke... but overall, I don't think we need a 'bunch of them.'       I agree, pretty much  have to temper expectations on Speed being from a small school.  He did really improve on STs last year and he got his praise any time Ballard or any coaches spoke about him.  I get the feeling Ballard and staff are willing to use patience with project players (Ballard states that fairly regularly).  With Oke, Walker, Leonard and then Franklin who has more playing experience at LB - I don't think there was really much need to rush Speed into an LB role last year.  He got plenty of ST snaps and did well there, hopefully boosting his confidence that he can play at NFL level while still refining his LB technique in practices and the film room.     While I would rather see guys like Adams and Glasgow on STs - I don't think it is terrible to have them on the roster primarily as STers but being our 5th and 6th ranked LBs on the depth chart as well.  Meaning, if we went into the season with Leonard, Oke, Speed and Franklin as our top 4 with Adams and Glasgow as STers but listed as 5 and 6 on depth chart, I don't think it'd be the worst thing (especially considering we predominantly play with only 2 LBers on the field).  So, sure it'd be nice to bring in a mid-late round draft pick or sign a decent FA for fairly cheap, but I'd rather see us dishing out money to bring in a solid LT, a playmaker at TE (and maybe WR), retain Rhodes, ensure the DL was solid (either by bringing back Houston and Autry or by getting a guy like Bud Dupree/JJ Watt/etc.), and add OL depth.  In otherwords, regardless of if we bring Walker back or not, I don't think LB is a top 5 position of concern right now.   I don't think Walker is going to command a ton, but he was 15th in the NFL in tackles in 2018 (124), tied for 28th (105) in 2019 and in the top 50 in 2020 (92).  He's a pretty productive player and a solid one - so he's going to demand significantly more than he was getting as a 5th round pick on his rookie contract.  And yes, he definitely wants to play more and I think his biggest issue here is his lack of athleticism.  You're right, he'll probably play more in a 3-4 D and he will likely be offered more money by a team where he'll play a lot than what Ballard will offer him.    See the last line from Ballard in this article:  https://www.colts.com/news/chris-ballard-philip-rivers-ty-hilton-xavier-rhodes-2020-season-press-conference (Ballard on Linebacker Anthony Walker: "I have a special relationship with Anthony Walker. Selfless. Team guy. Rare leader. I hope he gets into coaching one day or scouting. Mark my words on this: if Anthony Walker gets into coaching, he will be a head football coach in the National Football League. And if he gets into scouting, he'll be a general manager. He's brilliant — absolutely brilliant, and he's made of the right stuff. I know Anthony wants to play more. We value Anthony. We'll see how it works out. I want good for Anthony."   My guess is Walker is gone.  
    • It's basically just monitoring one thread (general thread), then updating the big board and pick thread with every pick. So 32ish real time updates per night. Not hard, just tedious.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...