NE/ATL

[2+2 wannabe]

Is it just me - or are the refs being super harsh on the Pats?

[Vince Young]

I dunno, CBS thinks I want to watch the [censored] Texans.

[sublime]

Michael Vick is worth 16 wins /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[WackityWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me - or are the refs being super harsh on the Pats?

[/ QUOTE ]

not anymore

[kenberman]

there have been a couple touchy calls each way - but that OOB call was real bad

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me - or are the refs being super harsh on the Pats?

[/ QUOTE ]

not anymore

[/ QUOTE ]

that's pretty goddamned awful

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, CBS thinks I want to watch the [censored] Texans.

[/ QUOTE ]

They want me to watch mountain biking. Woo!

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
there have been a couple touchy calls each way - but that OOB call was real bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely, and it wasn't like the ref was out of position. He was right there and completely blew that call.

[NoChance]

It's crazy that play can't be reviewed. It wasn't even close.

[Pudge714]

It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

name one

[bugstud]

hmmm dez white?

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmm dez white?

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes that is a tough one. I doubt there would be enough evidence to overturn

[Jack of Arcades]

I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmmm dez white?

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes that is a tough one. I doubt there would be enough evidence to overturn

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because he caught the ball and had control with 2 feet down. You can't overturn a good catch.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmmm dez white?

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes that is a tough one. I doubt there would be enough evidence to overturn

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because he caught the ball and had control with 2 feet down. You can't overturn a good catch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted that as it happened. tough to tell in real time

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmmm dez white?

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes that is a tough one. I doubt there would be enough evidence to overturn

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because he caught the ball and had control with 2 feet down. You can't overturn a good catch.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about we sit here for a half hour and argue back and forth about something that neither of us saw clearly? that would be sweet.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

name one

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuck Rule

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmmm dez white?

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes that is a tough one. I doubt there would be enough evidence to overturn

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because he caught the ball and had control with 2 feet down. You can't overturn a good catch.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about we sit here for a half hour and argue back and forth about something that neither of us saw clearly? that would be sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I checked instant replay gives you pretty clear angles in slow motion, and in this case it shows that it is clearly a catch

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

name one

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuck Rule

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. you want to lose this argument for the fifth year running? people who say the Pats won that game b/c of a 'missed call' are wrong for so many reasons, it's ridiculous.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

name one

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuck Rule

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. you want to lose this argument for the fifth year running? people who say the Pats won that game b/c of a 'missed call' are wrong for so many reasons, it's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brady got hit with both hands on the football ie fumble. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[TruFloridaGator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's the best athlete of our generation.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's the best athlete of our generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I should have used the term "football player" or "quaterback" or "sports figure"

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

name one

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuck Rule

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. you want to lose this argument for the fifth year running? people who say the Pats won that game b/c of a 'missed call' are wrong for so many reasons, it's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brady got hit with both hands on the football ie fumble. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry to be harsh, but you're an idiot

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's the best athlete of our generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's an incredible athlete, jut not a great QB (yet, anyway)

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's the best athlete of our generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's an incredible athlete, jut not a great QB (yet, anyway)

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah the word athlete was the wrong word to use in this instance.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps overhyped, but not overrated. Most people do not consider him to be a great quarterback, and haven't for the past two years. As an athlete his isn't overrated or even overhyped because he is one of the best athletes in the world. As a quarterback he was overhyped, but is no longer overrated.

As well this doesn't show Vick is overrated as much as it shows that Matt Schaub should be starting somewhere.

[TruFloridaGator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's the best athlete of our generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's an incredible athlete, jut not a great QB (yet, anyway)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup..

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps overhyped, but not overrated. Most people do not consider him to be a great quarterback, and haven't for the past two years. As an athlete his isn't overrated or even overhyped because he is one of the best athletes in the world. As a quarterback he was overhyped, but is no longer overrated.

As well this doesn't show Vick is overrated as much as it shows that Matt Schaub should be starting somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere...? yeah, Atlanta.

[Pudge714]

If you google image search tuck rule the picture in the top left you can see both his left hand on the ball. It's not a great picture if any one knows a of a better picture or better yet a video and could link it it would be greatly appreciated.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you google image search tuck rule the picture in the top left you can see both his left hand on the ball. It's not a great picture if any one knows a of a better picture or better yet a video and could link it it would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simmons:

Every time the Tuck Rule Game gets mentioned, three other things should also be mentioned: First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches. If they had gotten those three yards, Brady never gets the ball back. Everyone seems to forget this. And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football. Everyone forgets this, too. And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting.



To recap: Raiders fans have spent the last four years complaining about a play in which (A) their player should have been penalized, (B) the rule was interpreted correctly, and (C) it never should have happened in the first place because their coach choked away a second-and-3 situation and lacked the testicular fortitude to go for it on fourth down. Those are the facts. If you want to keep complaining, so be it.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
I want the Falcons to win so Clark can stop trotting out that ridiculous "record without Vick" stat, now that Schaub can actually play.

[/ QUOTE ]

vick has to be the most overrated athlete of our generation. no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps overhyped, but not overrated. Most people do not consider him to be a great quarterback, and haven't for the past two years. As an athlete his isn't overrated or even overhyped because he is one of the best athletes in the world. As a quarterback he was overhyped, but is no longer overrated.

As well this doesn't show Vick is overrated as much as it shows that Matt Schaub should be starting somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere...? yeah, Atlanta.

[/ QUOTE ]

God, you'll do anything to try to help the Saints beat the Falcons, won't you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you google image search tuck rule the picture in the top left you can see both his left hand on the ball. It's not a great picture if any one knows a of a better picture or better yet a video and could link it it would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simmons:

Every time the Tuck Rule Game gets mentioned, three other things should also be mentioned: First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches. If they had gotten those three yards, Brady never gets the ball back. Everyone seems to forget this. And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football. Everyone forgets this, too. And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting.



To recap: Raiders fans have spent the last four years complaining about a play in which (A) their player should have been penalized, (B) the rule was interpreted correctly, and (C) it never should have happened in the first place because their coach choked away a second-and-3 situation and lacked the testicular fortitude to go for it on fourth down. Those are the facts. If you want to keep complaining, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love Bill Simmons, however the NFL rules comittee would never admit they were wrong. By announcing that officialy they would essentialy be putting an asterix on that years Super Bowl. As for them not getting the yardage on second and three that is irrelevant. That logic is like saying in todays game well it doesn't matter they called Schaub out of bounds because Atlanta still had a shot to win the game. So what if Oakland blew it they still should have won the game despite that.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you google image search tuck rule the picture in the top left you can see both his left hand on the ball. It's not a great picture if any one knows a of a better picture or better yet a video and could link it it would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simmons:

Every time the Tuck Rule Game gets mentioned, three other things should also be mentioned: First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches. If they had gotten those three yards, Brady never gets the ball back. Everyone seems to forget this. And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football. Everyone forgets this, too. And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting.



To recap: Raiders fans have spent the last four years complaining about a play in which (A) their player should have been penalized, (B) the rule was interpreted correctly, and (C) it never should have happened in the first place because their coach choked away a second-and-3 situation and lacked the testicular fortitude to go for it on fourth down. Those are the facts. If you want to keep complaining, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love Bill Simmons, however the NFL rules comittee would never admit they were wrong. By announcing that officialy they would essentialy be putting on that years Super Bowl. As for them not getting the yardage on second and three that is irrelevant. That logic is like saying in todays game well it doesn't matter they called Schaub out of bounds because Atlanta still had a shot to win the game. So what if Oakland blew it they still should have won the game despite that.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, but I'm done arguing with yout half baked logic.

[Jack of Arcades]

The Falcons *did* post their second highest points total on the season, the highest one being 2 points better against the Vikings.

[Pudge714]

When talking about the Buc's Lions game Peter King said, "The rule of common sense on plays like this should be this: If you put 10 people in 10 different rooms, all watching the same play and studying it to make a ruling, would they all determine it should be overturned? If so, overturn it. If not, if there's even a reasonable doubt, you cannot overturn it."

Do you honestly think 10 NFL referees would find indisputable evidence to overturn this call? If so you are seriously dillusional, and how is my logic half-baked. At least I am posting factual evidence, instead of personal attacks and expert commentarty by objective reporter Bill Simmons.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think 10 NFL referees would find indisputable evidence to overturn this call?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. which is exactly what I already posted.

for the record, here is what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think the Patriots won the game on that call, you have no idea what you are talking about. it was the Patriots defense that stopped the Raiders at the end, not the Tuck Rule. it was Gruden who gave us a chance by not going on 4th down, not the Tuck Rule. it was Brady who led the Pats on a drive after the Tuck play, not the tuck rule. and it was Vinatieri who kicked an impossible field goal in a foot of snow, not the tuck rule.

and on the 'tuck play' the referees CORRECTLY interpreted the rule!

if you want to sit there and think that there was some type of high level NFL conspiracy to cover up the true nature of this play, then gee, I guess that's your right. but there is nothing about your evidence that is factual. to the contrary, you're ignoring all evidence that shows that this game was won on "a missed call".

to recap: I've shown that the game was not won or lost on this one play, and I've shown (and the NFL has agreed) that there was no missed call.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think 10 NFL referees would find indisputable evidence to overturn this call?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. which is exactly what I already posted.

for the record, here is what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the Pats have won an important game before on a missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think the Patriots won the game on that call, you have no idea what you are talking about. it was the Patriots defense that stopped the Raiders at the end, not the Tuck Rule. it was Gruden who gave us a chance by not going on 4th down, not the Tuck Rule. it was Brady who led the Pats on a drive after the Tuck play, not the tuck rule. and it was Vinatieri who kicked an impossible field goal in a foot of snow, not the tuck rule.

and on the 'tuck play' the referees CORRECTLY interpreted the rule!

if you want to sit there and think that there was some type of high level NFL conspiracy to cover up the true nature of this play, then gee, I guess that's your right. but there is nothing about your evidence that is factual. to the contrary, you're ignoring all evidence that shows that this game was won on "a missed call".

to recap: I've shown that the game was not won or lost on this one play, and I've shown (and the NFL has agreed) that there was no missed call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot deny the fact if that is ruled a fumble the Pat's win. As well if I could find a video I could prove that it is indeed a fumble. Finally I never said there was a conspiracy, but it would be stupid for the league to sell out the refs, and admit they wrongly crowned the champion because of that.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot deny the fact if that is ruled a fumble the Pat's win.

[/ QUOTE ]
sure I can. who knows what would have happened the rest of the game? you can deal with "what if's" and you can ignore all the other key plays in this game, but I think that's a pretty stupid thing to do.

now, do you admit that if the Raiders had gone on 4th and 1, and gotten it, the Raiders probably would have won? if so, how is that play any more critical to the game than the Tuck play?

[ QUOTE ]
As well if I could find a video I could prove that it is indeed a fumble.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. fine. the NFL already went through this exercise, and ruled the referees correct. but I guess that Pudge714 has access to videos, and an understanding of the NFL rules, that the NFL doesn't have.

[ QUOTE ]
and admit they wrongly crowned the champion because of that.

[/ QUOTE ]
umm, the Tuck Rule did not take place in the Super Bowl. it was an AFC 2nd round game. The Patriots still had to win the AFC, and beat a Rams team that was favored by 14 points. saying the Patriots won the chmapionship b/c of the Tuck Rule is even weaker than the rest of your arguments.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot deny the fact if that is ruled a fumble the Pat's win.

[/ QUOTE ]
sure I can. who knows what would have happened the rest of the game? you can deal with "what if's" and you can ignore all the other key plays in this game, but I think that's a pretty stupid thing to do.

now, do you admit that if the Raiders had gone on 4th and 1, and gotten it, the Raiders probably would have won? if so, how is that play any more critical to the game than the Tuck play?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is just because they screwed up running out the clock it doesn't justify the refs losing them the game. Not that the Tuck Rule was more or less critical than the 4th an 1 play.

If they went for it and got it on fourth and one they would have one. Will you admit that if they called it a fumble they would have won barring some kneel down malfunction?

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
and admit they wrongly crowned the champion because of that.

[/ QUOTE ]
umm, the Tuck Rule did not take place in the Super Bowl. it was an AFC 2nd round game. The Patriots still had to win the AFC, and beat a Rams team that was favored by 14 points. saying the Patriots won the chmapionship b/c of the Tuck Rule is even weaker than the rest of your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Pats lose that game how can they win the AFC Championship or the Super Bowl? Last time I checked it was impossible. They played very well against both St. Louis and Pittsburgh. However they don't play those games if the Tuck Rule is called correctly.

As well I never mentioned the rest of the road to their superbowl was easy or they played poorly, or the refs won the games for them. They played very well, but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion because I am assuming that Oakland wins that game.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot deny the fact if that is ruled a fumble the Raiders win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops my bad

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is just because they screwed up running out the clock it doesn't justify the refs losing them the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, I hate to be mean, but you're either a moron, or a troll.

either tell me how the refs 'lost them the game' (when the NFL has already reviwed the play, and said they made the correct call), or for the love of god, please stop posting.

either way, I'm done with you.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time the Tuck Rule Game gets mentioned, three other things should also be mentioned: First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches. If they had gotten those three yards, Brady never gets the ball back. Everyone seems to forget this. And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football. Everyone forgets this, too. And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting.



To recap: Raiders fans have spent the last four years complaining about a play in which (A) their player should have been penalized, (B) the rule was interpreted correctly, and (C) it never should have happened in the first place because their coach choked away a second-and-3 situation and lacked the testicular fortitude to go for it on fourth down. Those are the facts. If you want to keep complaining, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the best responses I have ever read here.

[thatpfunk]

cna't someone act like the [censored] for this forum and just purge this retard from posting (the troll, not you dude)

[Pudge714]

Sorry, but how exactly am I being a troll. I believe I am posting relevant responses backing them up with information. It's not like I'm making personal attacks or making garbage posts, I'm just stating my opinion and he is disagreeing with me. We have generated a decent discussion between the two of us, and that is all. If we are going to ban people for voicing a different opinion that is pretty ridiculous.

[David04]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me - or are the refs being super harsh on the Pats?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the NFL wants them to lose.