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

    • Crap, sorry.   with the 129th pick, the Seahawks select:   Anthony Schwartz, WR, Auburn   If that doesn’t make Russell Wilson happy, then 7@€# him!   @crazycolt1and the Jags are aim the clock.
    • Watson started this recent public trade thing by stating that the organization has flawed hiring practices.  And I think he never debunked the idea that the current owner was a lot like his father, simply because he is his son.   Its not really about the next season or even the team's won loss record over the next three years.  Its bigger than that.  I think it would be smarter to not accommodate whiners, and in a legal manner, not set the precedent of accommodating someone who conducts detrimental actions that undermines the new coach and the authority structure of the organization.   If you accommodate Watson, you set the precedent that all whiners need to be accommodated or else you end up singling some out for disparate treatment.  This shows what a cancer players like Watson are to an entire organization.    And, I would think a player like that has limited trade value, despite the rumors.  I would  simply move on from him....forget he even exists...would be the less time consuming and smarter move.  If he wants to sit out, fine, but I'm drafting this spring with the idea that he's going to try to put me at a disadvantage and wait until after FA and the draft before he tells me he wont play next year.   There is some root of the problem that has yet to be revealed.   If its about making bad personnel decisions, resulting in a losing record, I get that....but the HC, OBrien who was responsible for those moves was fired months ago.  Seems like Watson and Watt are still holding some kind of grudge over something, or simply launching their marketing brand by grandstanding.   If I were the GM, I'd just ignore Watson until he apologized for those statements instead of honoring his wishes, and then if the team struggles, show to the whole world what people like that can do to a team, blame the teams failure's over a whiner sitting out the season too arrogant and stubborn to apologize for something he should not have said in the first place.       
    • The 2006 team was the greatest and it is not even a debate. They went 10-0 at home including the playoffs, 16-4 overall, and most importantly won the SB = they finished. The 2005 team during the regular season beat teams by a wider margin but lost in the divisional round. That team did not have Adam Vinatieri either, the 2006 team did. In 2006 we seen the best of Bob Sanders in the playoffs and we went through Ray Lewis/Ed Reed/Steve McNair at Baltimore, and beat Tom Brady and Bill Belichick in the AFC Title Game. Also in respect to the 2009 team, that team didn't have Vinatieri either, nor did it have Marvin Harrison or Bob Sanders, Dungy wasn't the Coach as well. It is 2006 hands down.
    • Probably 2005, that  team was loaded and then played a tragically bad game to the sixth seeded Steelers in the playoffs.    
  • Members

    • Defjamz26

      Defjamz26 2,031

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfanmurf

      coltsfanmurf 51

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 2,477

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Flash7

      Flash7 1,107

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,314

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tannurr

      tannurr 7

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dogg63

      Dogg63 2,025

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DougDew

      DougDew 2,564

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • FRW

      FRW 125

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,089

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...