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

    • They were never going to pick Lamar in 2018   Karl Joseph is a bench player and Fitzpatrick is much better than him anyways   Not sure what this post is getting after
    • They are likely kicking the can down the road, and the negative consequence is higher cap numbers for those players in future seasons, and greater cap penalties to move on from those players in future seasons. The thing is there's no much else they can do. they're set to be nearly $70m over the cap in 2021, and other than these restructures, they would not be able to get under the cap by the start of the new league year. They would have to cut or trade all of their highly paid players.
    • I feel the hype about Carl Lawson is from a combination of people who haven't really watched him play, and who overrate "pressures" by assuming that all pressures are equally disruptive.    Lawson is a tough, physical, high effort guy, he tackles well, plays the run reasonably well, he has decent size, and he would fit nicely as a DE for us. He's not a dynamic pass rusher, and I don't think he ever would be a dynamic pass rusher.   He has some quickness and speed, good speed to power, but he's not the kind of explosive pass rusher that blows up the other team's blocking schemes. He has below average bend and closing speed, and he takes a lot of steps, which explains his tragically poor three cone. He also has below average length, and gets neutralized by good blockers. This is all obvious on his tape, it was obvious on his college tape, and it's why he went in the 4th round.   TomDiggs mentioned Lawson's knockdowns/hits and hurries. PFF recorded six edge rushers with at least QB 15 hits; despite the fact that Lawson had 24 hits, he only had five sacks, which is the least sacks among those six players. In fact, there were ten edges with fewer than 15 QB hits, but with at least ten sacks. PFF has 24 edges with at least 30 pressures; Lawson had 34 hurries, but was tied for fifth fewest sacks among those 24 players. In fact, there were five edges with fewer hurries than Lawson, but at least ten sacks.   My point is that QB hits and pressures only show a player that manages to get near the QB at some point during the play. Without context, they don't necessarily show a player that makes a definite impact on the play. That's why I value PFF's pass rush productivity (PRP) stat, because sacks are weighted more heavily than hits and pressures. And that makes sense because a sack ends the play. A QB can be pressured, even hit, and still make a positive play. Recognizing a sack as nearly always a negative play for the offense, PRP shows the difference between a guy who gets near the QB, and a pass rusher who makes plays for the defense. Sometimes the overlap is not as great as you might think.   Lawson's PRP was 8.5, tied for #18, well separated from guys like Bosa (10.6) and Watt (9.7). In general, a player with a bunch of total pressures, but low sack numbers, like Lawson, is a guy who gets a bunch of pass rush snaps but doesn't have the length, bend and closing speed to get home often enough. This is why guys like Trey Hendrickson and Leonard Floyd can have a third fewer total pressures, but twice as many sacks as Lawson (Hendrickson also had 80 fewer pass rush snaps). And Lawson gets a ton of pass rush snaps because he plays for a bad team with no other good edge rushers, so as long as he's healthy he'll have a lot of pressures, but he'll probably never be a big sack guy.   He's Trey Flowers. Better 40, same agility, not as long, mid level edge rusher who is well rounded and a good guy to have on your team, but not a dominant pass rusher. I can't see offering him $14m/year to not sack the QB. Any projection that has him as a big time sack guy is unrealistic, IMO.
    • It's nice to see Pittman, Smith and Okereke get some love.
    • Did I misread your post?   Did you not say you were in favor of moving Nelson to LT?   That if we’re going to pay him top dollar, it would be better to do it with him as our LT instead of at LG?    That wasn’t you?    I’m sorry, I thought that’s what I responded to.... 
  • Members

    • tvturner

      tvturner 291

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solon

      Solon 94

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • fanoftheteam

      fanoftheteam 0

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • life long

      life long 188

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SteelCityColt

      SteelCityColt 4,469

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shafty138

      Shafty138 1,372

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