Flawed Replay Rule

[dw49]

That would be fine, I would prefer they get full time refs. I am not sure how someone could look at that replay and not be completely confident that the Colts recovered the onside kick.

 

 

Especially since there really wan't much that went on after what the replay shows. They broke it up very quickly. So you have Montcrief gathering the ball in , pretty much no subsequent action in the play and him getting up with the ball in his hands. I mean really now.. let's not be ridiculous.

[Cynjin]

Especially since there really wan't much that went on after what the replay shows. They broke it up very quickly. So you have Montcrief gathering the ball in , pretty much no subsequent action in the play and him getting up with the ball in his hands. I mean really now.. let's not be ridiculous.

Completely agree, I don't understand what they were thinking.

[spartancolt]

It doesn't get much more conclusive.

sure it does..it seemed moncrief had it then bodies surrounding it cut off the absolute proof..you can speculate moncrief would have got it.. Speculate is key word.. Under letter of law they couldn't overturn it by what probably would have happened.. I say this as a colt fan who believes we got it but rules r rules my friend.

[Cynjin]

sure it does..it seemed moncrief had it then bodies surrounding it cut off the absolute proof..you can speculate moncrief would have got it.. Speculate is key word.. Under letter of law they couldn't overturn it by what probably would have happened.. I say this as a colt fan who believes we got it but rules r rules my friend.

Completely disagree, Colts clearly and conclusively recovered the ball.

[RockThatBlue]

I think the officiating this year has been the worst I've ever seen it. Some of these games are unwatchable cause the refs throw a flag every 2 plays. Seems like there's been quite a few missed calls this year too.

[RockThatBlue]

sure it does..it seemed moncrief had it then bodies surrounding it cut off the absolute proof..you can speculate moncrief would have got it.. Speculate is key word.. Under letter of law they couldn't overturn it by what probably would have happened.. I say this as a colt fan who believes we got it but rules r rules my friend.

There's no speculation though. Moncrief had it. He clearly grabbed the ball after the pats player failed to recover it.

[ricker182]

There's no speculation though. Moncrief had it. He clearly grabbed the ball after the pats player failed to recover it.

Very clearly. Idk how they missed it.

[Two_pound]

jskinnz, really, the Colts have their fair share of calls go their way.  My point was the officiating is awful in games against those small handful of teams. Sure we get breaks in some games. 2003 afc shamionship game was a disgrace, not one flag was thrown as Colt receivers were held, knocked down, tripped, you name it, it happened. Former pat linebacker Mike Vrable said after the game, " we couldn't believe what we were getting away with out there, we would have been stupid to stop doing that". I give Vrable credit for stepping up and being honest.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I don't want to sound like a whiner but I personally think we get screwed more times than not. When we play teams like the Pats and Steelers we rarely get the benefit of the officiating. Only call we ever got that was bad in our favor that I can recall against Pitt was the Polamalu INT getting taken away but generally we never get any borderline calls against the Pats or Steelers it seems.

[2006Coltsbestever]

jskinnz, really, the Colts have their fair share of calls go their way.  My point was the officiating is awful in games against those small handful of teams. Sure we get breaks in some games. 2003 afc shamionship game was a disgrace, not one flag was thrown as Colt receivers were held, knocked down, tripped, you name it, it happened. Former pat linebacker Mike Vrable said after the game, " we couldn't believe what we were getting away with out there, we would have been stupid to stop doing that". I give Vrable credit for stepping up and being honest.

The 2003 AFC Title was a disgrace. Marvin and Reggie were held all game and nothing was called.

[Douzer]

The Colts recovered the onside kick. It wasn't a difficult call and all the evidence needed was clearly visible on the field and in the replays. Possession was established, without any doubt, by Moncrief, and the call was made "Colts Ball". What happened next is where people stick their heads in the sand. Specifically, the call on the field was overruled by a particular unnamed ref off camera.  Now, let's all jamb our heads back in the sand, take a big swig of the everything is legit kool-aid and pretend there's nothing to see here...

[jskinnz]

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the same old crap of blatantly bad calls going against the Colts when playing krap and rooney and the other small handfull of clowns who get the credit for running the league? Seriously, I've been a Colt fan for over 45 years and I can't recall 5 times we have gotten any breaks in games against the "brilliant, fearless, most revered leaders of the nfl". Really, most games against those teams turn into a farce and last night was no exception. Hey nfl, get rid of the pathetic officiating!!!!

 

The notion that the refs favor Kraft, Rooney & other owners of large market teams is simply flawed.

 

Because you can't recall breaks the Colt have received in games against those teams does not mean they did not happen.  Kelvin Hayden mugged a Pats receiver in the end zone in the 2006 AFCCG and did not get called.  Just one example.

 

jskinnz, really, the Colts have their fair share of calls go their way.  My point was the officiating is awful in games against those small handful of teams. Sure we get breaks in some games. 2003 afc shamionship game was a disgrace, not one flag was thrown as Colt receivers were held, knocked down, tripped, you name it, it happened. Former pat linebacker Mike Vrable said after the game, " we couldn't believe what we were getting away with out there, we would have been stupid to stop doing that". I give Vrable credit for stepping up and being honest.

 

That game is universally pointed to by Colts fans as evidence the league was out to get them.  Just pure nonsense.  There was not a single post-snap penalty called in the game - against either team.  Instead of blaming the refs how about Indy figure out the way the game is being called and adjust accordingly.  Plus hope that Manning does not throw 4 nit's.

 

Look there are bad calls in every game.  Some go your way and some don't.  That happens.  What is just not accurate its there is a conspiracy against Indy because it ain't true.

[amfootball]

The notion that the refs favor Kraft, Rooney & other owners of large market teams is simply flawed.

 

Because you can't recall breaks the Colt have received in games against those teams does not mean they did not happen.  Kelvin Hayden mugged a Pats receiver in the end zone in the 2006 AFCCG and did not get called.  Just one example.

 

 

That game is universally pointed to by Colts fans as evidence the league was out to get them.  Just pure nonsense.  There was not a single post-snap penalty called in the game - against either team.  Instead of blaming the refs how about Indy figure out the way the game is being called and adjust accordingly.  Plus hope that Manning does not throw 4 nit's.

 

Look there are bad calls in every game.  Some go your way and some don't.  That happens.  What is just not accurate its there is a conspiracy against Indy because it ain't true.

Great post. The officiating has been horrible this year overall BUT you have to over come as a team and continue to play and win the game. I had pointed out in another thread that the PI call on Chandler before half was total horse poop and took 4 points off and had the Pats trailing at half instead of up by 3. Huge point in the game that could have impacted the outcome more so than the onside as that was just possession. Chandler had actually scored the TD. Just frustrating. But like you said, what can you do. Have to move and keep grinding...

[lollygagger8]

$$$- they'd have to keep them employed full time with a good salary.

 

The NFL makes more than enough money to pay refs. 

[ingolfer]

Not sure what all replays they showed on TV, but at the game they were showing numerous angles on the big screen. I'm sure the ref had access to the same replays. While many replays made it hard to tell, there were definitely 2 angles that showed a clear Colts recovery.

 

On the first angle you could see the Pats player that supposedly "recovered" the ball jump on it and it squirted out behind him. The ball ended up BEHIND HIS BACK. On the other angle you could then see Moncrief recovering after the ball went behind the Pats players back.

 

None of the other angles gave a clear picture of what happened, but once the video came up of the Pats player having his back to the ball the crowd went nuts. That single video could have cleared the entire thing up so I'm not sure if the ref ever saw that angle or not.

[jskinnz]

I know I am a broken record on this, but why can't they get full time refs and replace these part time refs?

 

Personally I have always thought the cry for full-time refs after a call like the on-sides kick was a bunch of nonsense.  Full-time employees are capable of human error as well.  I think we would be surprised at how much time the refs spend learning and applying the rules.

 

Plus on something like Sunday, it seems that a seemingly obvious mistake may not be able to be overturned because of a           procedural rule application or the language of "irrefutable visual evidence" does not change if they are full-time.  I don't know the specific rule applied on Sunday night but if there was nothing they can do about it, that is a rule issue and not an official issue.

[Cynjin]

Personally I have always thought the cry for full-time refs after a call like the on-sides kick was a bunch of nonsense.  Full-time employees are capable of human error as well.  I think we would be surprised at how much time the refs spend learning and applying the rules.

 

Plus on something like Sunday, it seems that a seemingly obvious mistake may not be able to be overturned because of a           procedural rule application or the language of "irrefutable visual evidence" does not change if they are full-time.  I don't know the specific rule applied on Sunday night but if there was nothing they can do about it, that is a rule issue and not an official issue.

Full time refs would not be infallible, but they would be much less likely to have some of these errors due to the fact that they would have more time to concentrate on being better refs. It's not just the call on Sunday, which is reviewable and was clearly a blown call. These current refs are not that much better than the replacement refs that so many were complaining about. Full time refs would be able to dedicate significantly more time and concentration to the job, that would lead to fewer of these missed calls.

[jskinnz]

Full time refs would not be infallible, but they would be much less likely to have some of these errors due to the fact that they would have more time to concentrate on being better refs. It's not just the call on Sunday, which is reviewable and was clearly a blown call. These current refs are not that much better than the replacement refs that so many were complaining about. Full time refs would be able to dedicate significantly more time and concentration to the job, that would lead to fewer of these missed calls.

 

 

This is always a knee-jerk reaction to a call at some point in the season.  I simply disagree.  

[Narcosys]

The ref's said that they blew the whistle early, claiming that the Pats player was down by contact.  So it was not a challenge on who recovered it, but that the Pats player was down by contact.  That is why the play was not overturned.

[Cynjin]

This is always a knee-jerk reaction to a call at some point in the season.  I simply disagree.

In my case there is nothing knee jerk about it. I just believe there is a better way.

[jskinnz]

In my case there is nothing knee jerk about it. I just believe there is a better way.

 

Maybe not you as knee-jerk reaction but there is plenty of that on here all the time.  To me the notion that a bad call would not have happened if the refs were full time just does not fly.  

[Two_pound]

Ofcourse I know you don't get anywhere trying to discuss pathetic officiating with people no matter what the situation, but to say to "realize how the game is being called and adjust accordingly is laughable. So one team is blatantly cheating to slow down a clearly superior team the solution is just cheat as badly as they are. Some how I don't think coach Dungy would have went along with that. What about the 95 afc championship game when Stewert clearly stepped out of bounds in the back of the end zone with 6 seconds left but caught the pass for a td? A free 7 points there. If the steelers have to kick a fg there that's 4 less points, how many points did the Colts lose that game by? But the refs weren't done there. How about when Harbaugh scrambled with less than 30 seconds to go and steeler number 24 practically ripped his head off with a facemask and there was NO FLAG. Now, make the right call, the clock stops with 20 seconds to go and moves the ball from the 30 to the 15 and the Colts get a minimum of 4 shots to win that game. Instead we had to spike the ball with 6 seconds left and throw a hail mary. As hard fought and tough as that game was I'd say the refs had just as much to do with that loss as anything else. But, that's just my opinion. Quick question-what former Colt was nicknamed the "Rude Dude"?

[dw49]

The ref's said that they blew the whistle early, claiming that the Pats player was down by contact.  So it was not a challenge on who recovered it, but that the Pats player was down by contact.  That is why the play was not overturned.

 

 

Where did you see this ? They did blow the whistle , but I thought the rule was if there was a clear recovery , possession changes. In any event , that would be a bad , nonsense ruling also. Just like my thread is titled... "FLAWED." How can you have a "down by contact when the review clearly shows the NE player never had possession ?  Does this get a "like" from you am football ? 

[Narcosys]

Where did you see this ? They did blow the whistle , but I thought the rule was if there was a clear recovery , possession changes. In any event , that would be a bad , nonsense ruling also. Just like my thread is titled... "FLAWED." How can you have a "down by contact when the review clearly shows the NE player never had possession ? Does this get a "like" from you am football ?

Pat McAfee interview on Bob and tom. He talked with the refs about it and they ruled kline down by contact. So there was no way to challenge possession, but the down by contact rule.

[dw49]

Pat McAfee interview on Bob and tom. He talked with the refs about it and they ruled kline down by contact. So there was no way to challenge possession, but the down by contact rule.

 

 

Like I said ...very flawed as anyone with an IQ over 12 would contend that you cant have a pay blown "legally " dead by a player that never had the ball. Thanks for the sourse.

 

I also might add that was not the explanation given Sunday night by the official after the replay. He clearly announced in his mike to the crowd and TV audience that the pay was not overtures due to "NO CLEAR RECOVERY BY INDY." 

[Narcosys]

Like I said ...very flawed as anyone with an IQ over 12 would contend that you cant have a pay blown "legally " dead by a player that never had the ball. Thanks for the sourse.

I also might add that was not the explanation given Sunday night by the official after the replay. He clearly announced in his mike to the crowd and TV audience that the pay was not overtures due to "NO CLEAR RECOVERY BY INDY."

Those were not his words.

Plus, they blew the play dead contending that kline had poseession and was down by contact. So the only thing you can challenge is if he wasn't down by contact. That's where they had no clear evidence.

[RealityIsLuck]

It's true. It's really starting to affect some of the games around the league in a very negative fashion.

[Gramz]

Anyone (officials included) who thought that ball was recovered by the Pats is clearly delusional.

[ricker182]

Those were not his words.

Plus, they blew the play dead contending that kline had poseession and was down by contact. So the only thing you can challenge is if he wasn't down by contact. That's where they had no clear evidence.

Which is another huge flaw in the NFL.

 

A little quick on the whistle there for the Pats it seems too.

[dw49]

Those were not his words.

Plus, they blew the play dead contending that kline had poseession and was down by contact. So the only thing you can challenge is if he wasn't down by contact. That's where they had no clear evidence.

 

 

We differ on what we heard for the explanation Sunday night. I also don't see what the difference is if Kilne was touched when he was down or not . There is CLEAR evidence he never had the ball. Like I said .. very flawed and makes no sense. 

[Narcosys]

But the ruling was that he was down by contact. There is no clear evidence that he was not down by contact. He laced on the ball, lost sight of it, and then Moncrief got the ball.

[Johnny Bui]

story of the whole entire  NFL season.  Maybe all male refs should replaced by female because so far its not even close.  

There should be the challenge and to challenge a review.

[dw49]

Those were not his words.

Plus, they blew the play dead contending that kline had poseession and was down by contact. So the only thing you can challenge is if he wasn't down by contact. That's where they had no clear evidence.

 

 

Go to post 27 and play the video. I'm hearing "the ruling on the field stands with no clear recovery." In the post where you said "those were not his words" , I was really pretty close as I said "no clear recovery by Indy."

[GoColts8818]

To me the issue on Sunday wasn't the replay it was the ref saying Pats ball on the field without even looking to see who had it.

[Narcosys]

Go to post 27 and play the video. I'm hearing "the ruling on the field stands with no clear recovery." In the post where you said "those were not his words" , I was really pretty close as I said "no clear recovery by Indy."

Ok. But it's in the context that he was ruled down. So with no clear recovery, they have to go by the ruling that he was down by contact before the ball came out.

[dw49]

Ok. But it's in the context that he was ruled down. So with no clear recovery, they have to go by the ruling that he was down by contact before the ball came out.

 

Goes back yuo what I exactly stated. This is a flawed rule or bad call. It's not what you said which was the criteria was proving the NE player wasn't touched while he was down. Th refs statement after the pay on national TV proves this. So it goes back t[ what I said,

 

1) Many thought the replay showed the ball belonged with Indy.

 

2) If it wasn't 100 % that , use some common sense. The relay PROVES there was no NE recovery of that fee kick (remember this was not a turnover) , then it cleary shows the player gathering the ball and then comes  out of the pile with the ball. uhhhh.. come on... who should be awarded the ball ?