M.N.F.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:22 pm

The play was on 1st and 8. Even if that call gets overturned, the Pats still had 3 more tries at the end zone.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:24 pm

And who is to say that they score? A lot can happen in 3 plays

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Yup, a lot can happen but based on the track record of the team and personnel involved, it was a near certainty that it would have happened. Once th pats had 1st and Goal at the 8, I don't see how any rational fan could have had much doubt they were going to score. Hope, sure. Doubt? Nah.
As it is though, it was called a TD and the decision was upheld on review.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:09 pm

Cubs wrote:
Second, the media treats them as if no one has ever done what they've accomplished. It was what? Two year ago when the Colts were 13-0? How quickly they forget everything that isn't from the northeast.

The HUGE difference between a 13-0 Colts team and a 13-0 Pats team, is the Pats are much better than they ever were. There was no talk surrounding the greatest team ever and the Colts in the same sentence.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:13 pm

ESPN wrote:No. 110 is head linesman Phil McKinnely, a former player for three NFL teams during the 1970s and '80s. McKinnely, who played collegiately at UCLA, is black, as is Rolle.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3141124

Why does everything have to involve race? What the hell. Its the most aggravating thing in the media today.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:15 pm

Why? Because the Colts didn't run up the score on everyone? Because the Colts play in a small market city and so the media doesn't care about them because they're not from the Northeast or LA?

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:18 pm

Small market media should not come into play, nor did it, when the Colts were 13-0. There was plenty of coverage about them. I think I stopped watching ESPN for awhile because of it but still saw it everywhere in the papers and local news.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:20 pm

Angels wrote:Small markets should not come into play, nor did it, when the Colts were 13-0. There was plenty of coverage about them. I think I stopped watching ESPN for awhile because of it but still saw it everywhere in the papers and local news.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:52 pm

Cardinals wrote:Because the Colts play in a small market city and so the media doesn't care about them because they're not from the Northeast or LA?

That's the biggest load of crap you've ever laid on us Aaron. Don't even try to suggest the Colts don't get enough media coverage or exposure. That's pure crap.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:12 pm

First, I'm not arguing about the catch being called a TD. I think they got it right. But to sit there and say it was an unquestionable catch it stupid. It was late in the fourth quarter and it was a game changing TD and the ball was moving. Of course it's gonna be questioned.

Next, don't tell me the Pats team is better than the Colts team. That's stupid. No one will ever know which team was better cause the teams will never play. And if you honestly don't think there's a difference between the coverage the Pats get and the coverage small market teams in the same situation would get, you're an idiot. It would be the same if it was my Cowboys or any other major team. They're different and they get covered diffferent.

Small market doesn't matter? Are you fucking serious? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And don't use the excuse of "there was no talk about that team being the greatest." So talk makes the difference? The media jacking off over a major market team doesn't make the shit they say true. I'm sorry. Try again.

I'm not doubting the Pats or trying to cheapen their win. But the stupid shit like this that Pats fans say is part of the reason why you're team is one of the most hated of all time. That, and cheating.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:07 pm

The Colts are not exactly a small market team. Having Peyton Manning puts them on par with the Packers having Brett Favre, another small market that doesn't want for coverage. Every ESPN personality was on the Colts' jock that entire season, as they have been pretty much since Manning took his place among the "elite" QBs. This isn't exactly the Colorado Rockies we're talking about here as a small market, The Colts are a lot of things, but under-represented in media coverage they are not. Also Dave, the reason that they had to mention the official's race is that boy is an old-school epithet, and by clarifying that the official was black we're avoiding months and months of coverage about the racism of NFL officials.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:13 pm

Athletics wrote:The Colts are not exactly a small market team. Having Peyton Manning puts them on par with the Packers having Brett Favre, another small market that doesn't want for coverage. Every ESPN personality was on the Colts' jock that entire season, as they have been pretty much since Manning took his place among the "elite" QBs. This isn't exactly the Colorado Rockies we're talking about here as a small market, The Colts are a lot of things, but under-represented in media coverage they are not. Also Dave, the reason that they had to mention the official's race is that boy is an old-school epithet, and by clarifying that the official was black we're avoiding months and months of coverage about the racism of NFL officials.

Perfectly put. The Colts are Manning, Manning is the Colts, any coverage he gets is coverage of the Colts and vice versa. Same with Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.

The officiating crew made some questionable calls, but reviewing the catch was not a questionable decision. In such a situation, if the guy in the booth sees even the slightest question that it should be a catch, they should review it. I have no qualms with that. Saying it should have been overturned however is ridiculous.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:40 am

like i told JP before, In my book it was good enough to be a catch, and it shouldve been a catch, however according the to NFL rules, it was not a catch. The rules say the player must have COMPLETE control over the ball. Even the slightest bobble makes it not a catch.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:20 am

I'm calling horseshit on this right now Jake. I just went to the NFL Rules Digest - the only definition of a catch is "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot."

Jabar Gaffney was in CLEAR possession of the ball while getting both feet in-bound. Exactly what rule book are you talking about?

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:58 pm

the ball was moving around in his hands slightly which indicates not clear possession. If the call on the field was incomplete, it wouldve been incomplete after the review. There wasnt enough evidence to overturn any call but the ball was def. moving around in his hands.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:01 pm

The ball was always on his fingertips, and thus in his possession. If the ball was actually bobbled, where one hand was not in contact with the ball at any point, then it would be moving and not in his possession.

The fact that two hands were directly on the ball the entire time constitutes possession and a catch.

But, please, continue arguing incorrectly...

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Brewers wrote:the ball was moving around in his hands slightly which indicates not clear possession. If the call on the field was incomplete, it wouldve been incomplete after the review. There wasnt enough evidence to overturn any call but the ball was def. moving around in his hands.

As un unbiased obvserver, I was actually rooting for the Ravens, the ball was not "clearly" moving around in his hands. Gafney had the ball in both hands and brought it into his body as he was going out of bounds. The ball did not rotate freely, or show any clear sign of movement that was not directly caused by his hands bringing the ball into his body.

I watched the replay, 6-7 times in HD and I was rooting for the Ravens and still saw no clear sign that the ball was moving freely or any sign that could clearly justify overturning the call on that TD. And I was looking hard, because I really don't want to see the Pats go undefeated this season. The New England love is already hard to stand in the league, if the Pats went undefeated this season and won the SB, it would be virtually unbearable.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:12 pm

the video is very inconclusive but it looks as if he lost control for a split second. Again not enough to overturn anything

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:18 pm

Brewers wrote:the video is very inconclusive but it looks as if he lost control for a split second.

I think that is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:58 pm

"all the New England love around the league"

What league are you talking about exactly? The League Of Diehard Patriots fans? Because you can't be talking about the National Football League OR the IBC.