Why Tom Brady is a complete and utter d-bag and the Pats have no class

[Daseal]

That holding call was a little touchy, but it was holding. If you watch the ball, the safety also hits the receiver before the ball gets there, so it was a penalty either way.

If the Ravens want to blame someone, blame Bart Scott for racking up 30 yards worth of penalties on the kickoff. If they had better field position they could have gotten a FG and died.

I hate both teams. A lot. Both are in my top 5 (Dallas, Philly, NYG, Pats, Ravens) and Baltimore kept them alive. I don't think the refs called any fouls out of the ordinary. As far as Brady not having a 21 sticker, that sounds like an equipment manager deal, not a Brady deal. These guys aren't tossing stickers on their own helmets.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

That holding call was a little touchy, but it was holding. If you watch the ball, the safety also hits the receiver before the ball gets there, so it was a penalty either way.

If the Ravens want to blame someone, blame Bart Scott for racking up 30 yards worth of penalties on the kickoff. If they had better field position they could have gotten a FG and died.

I hate both teams. A lot. Both are in my top 5 (Dallas, Philly, NYG, Pats, Ravens) and Baltimore kept them alive. I don't think the refs called any fouls out of the ordinary. As far as Brady not having a 21 sticker, that sounds like an equipment manager deal, not a Brady deal. These guys aren't tossing stickers on their own helmets.

by the letter of the rules, yes it was a penalty, but the Refs were calling it loose for the Pats all night long. Again, I dislike both teams, I have no bias but, to me, there was a big difference in how the rules were applied to each team.

[MTK]

I really don't care what they said or didn't say after the game. They certainly were not obligated to say anything at all.

As for the game I thought the refs really took the game out of the Ravens hands at the end. Even Moss said that they weren't calling things all game long, and only at the end did they call that critical holding call.

[BleedBurgundy]

And isn't there some sort of directive towards the officials that in crunch time they're supposed to let them play a bit more? I could've swore I've heard that before...

[Daseal]

by the letter of the rules, yes it was a penalty, but the Refs were calling it loose for the Pats all night long. Again, I dislike both teams, I have no bias but, to me, there was a big difference in how the rules were applied to each team.

Still, the safety hit the player before the ball got there. It would have been a penalty either way. You didn't address that. I didn't see the whole game, but at the same time, the Ravens are one of the most penalized teams in the NFL for a reason. They wanted the be physical with the pats, and that's going to draw fouls.

And isn't there some sort of directive towards the officials that in crunch time they're supposed to let them play a bit more? I could've swore I've heard that before...

I think this depends on the ref crew. To be honest, if I were a player consistency would be my main concern.

I know it sounds like I'm trying to defend the Pats, but I really do hate them! I just think the Ravens shot themselves in the foot a bunch of times. I mean, the TO was called before the snap, the false start happened before the snap, and I feel there were two penalties on the big play in question, although one was a little touchy but holding by rules.

As far as the Gaffney catch, I think it was good. Looked like he was just shifting arms. The ball never looked loose at any point to me. He seemed to have control of it, just changed arms. I think that was the type of play that doesn't get overturned regardless of how it's called.

[Southpaw]

I agree with many people here that think the game was slanted in the Pats favor, but I heard and interesting thought on Mike & Mike this morning. They were saying that big stars do occasionally get preferential treatment when it relates to calls, and that it applies to all sports. How often did Jordan push off to get a clean shot at a jumper? How many times have you seen Shaq bang into someone, and not get called for a foul? And it applies to baseball too. Batters with a "good eye" get called balls that would be called strikes for lesser batters.

So I do think the Pats got a couple of iffy calls in their favor yesterday, but I find it hard to believe that it's some league wide conspiracy. That would require far too many people and involve far too much risk to be viable.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I agree with many people here that think the game was slanted in the Pats favor, but I heard and interesting thought on Mike & Mike this morning. They were saying that big stars do occasionally get preferential treatment when it relates to calls, and that it applies to all sports. How often did Jordan push off to get a clean shot at a jumper? How many times have you seen Shaq bang into someone, and not get called for a foul? And it applies to baseball too. Batters with a "good eye" get called balls that would be called strikes for lesser batters.

So I do think the Pats got a couple of iffy calls in their favor yesterday, but I find it hard to believe that it's some league wide conspiracy. That would require far too many people and involve far too much risk to be viable.

I hear you but when a team is chasing perfection and there is a legitimate argument about whether or not they are the "best ever," you want each victory to feel authentic. Right or wrong, I didn't feel like the best team won yesterday...

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I hear you but when a team is chasing perfection and there is a legitimate argument about whether or not they are the "best ever," you want each victory to feel authentic.

I completely agree. And the biggest example I can think of for me personally, was the Seahawks and Steelers Superbowl a few years ago. I effing despised the Seahawks, and wanted them to lose, but as the game went on, the Steelers got some iffy calls in their favor and it was a bit unsettling. Even if I completely hate a team, I don't want to see them lose if it's going to bring the integrity of the game into question.

But again, I don't think the NFL is purposely trying to engineer a perfect season for the Pats. However it does look a lot more suspicious when there's iffy calls in a close game like that.

[BleedBurgundy]

The gaffney catch was undoubtedly a catch. I think that was one where it looks slightly debatable when slowed down but if you watch it at full speed, there's really no question.

Regarding the safety making contact before the ball arrived: To me (and i haven't watched the replay this morning so maybe i am wrong) I thought the safety was making a play on the ball, in which case incidental contact is ok.

The other point is that the Pats got away with that physical db play for years, now they're undefeated and when a team plays them the way the pats play everyone else, it's called. I don't know, I didn't think that the ball was catchable anyway and I didn't think that needed to be called. My main point is even if it could have gone either way, I think it was pretty shady.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

The gaffney catch was undoubtedly a catch. I think that was one where it looks slightly debatable when slowed down but if you watch it at full speed, there's really no question.

Regarding the safety making contact before the ball arrived: To me (and i haven't watched the replay this morning so maybe i am wrong) I thought the safety was making a play on the ball, in which case incidental contact is ok.

The other point is that the Pats got away with that physical db play for years, now they're undefeated and when a team plays them the way the pats play everyone else, it's called. I don't know, I didn't think that the ball was catchable anyway and I didn't think that needed to be called. My main point is even if it could have gone either way, I think it was pretty shady.

I didnt think it was a catch and I have backup,plus they answered my other question about the penalties,this from profootballtalk.com

The other complaint from Ravens fans is that on Brady's game-winning touchdown pass to Jabar Gaffney with 44 seconds left, Gaffney stepped out of bounds before he had possession. There, the Ravens appear to have a good case.

In 2005, Lions tight end Marcus Pollard caught a pass in the end zone that was ruled a touchdown on the field but overturned on replay because the referee ruled that Pollard had not controlled the ball. That call was later backed up by NFL head ref Mike Pereira, who told then-Lions coach Steve Mariucci that a receiver has to have control, not just have his hands on the ball. Gaffney had his hands on the ball but did not have control when he stepped out of bounds, meaning (to my eyes, anyway) that if the Pollard play was ruled correctly in 2005, the Gaffney play was ruled incorrectly last night.

Of course, thanks to Ravens linebacker Bart Scott going bonkos after Gaffney's touchdown and getting two personal foul penalties, the Patriots would have had first-and-goal at the 2-yard line if Gaffney's touchdown had been overturned. So the Patriots still would have had a very good chance of scoring the game-winning touchdown.

[HOGTIMUS PRIME]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

I didnt think it was a catch and I have backup,plus they answered my other question about the penalties,this from profootballtalk.com

The other complaint from Ravens fans is that on Brady's game-winning touchdown pass to Jabar Gaffney with 44 seconds left, Gaffney stepped out of bounds before he had possession. There, the Ravens appear to have a good case.

In 2005, Lions tight end Marcus Pollard caught a pass in the end zone that was ruled a touchdown on the field but overturned on replay because the referee ruled that Pollard had not controlled the ball. That call was later backed up by NFL head ref Mike Pereira, who told then-Lions coach Steve Mariucci that a receiver has to have control, not just have his hands on the ball. Gaffney had his hands on the ball but did not have control when he stepped out of bounds, meaning (to my eyes, anyway) that if the Pollard play was ruled correctly in 2005, the Gaffney play was ruled incorrectly last night.

Of course, thanks to Ravens linebacker Bart Scott going bonkos after Gaffney's touchdown and getting two personal foul penalties, the Patriots would have had first-and-goal at the 2-yard line if Gaffney's touchdown had been overturned. So the Patriots still would have had a very good chance of scoring the game-winning touchdown.

It was as plain as day that that was not a catch, no doubt what so ever, I find it sceptical that no one in the booth really jumped on it, and that it took a replay official about 2 seconds to rule it a catch, although I think they score as well because of the penalties that ensued. It seemed to me the NFL is making sure the Pats run the table, which is a shame because their more than capable of doing it without their help. Kind of reminiscent to the job done by the ref's on Seattle in the SB 2 seasons ago.

The fact that Gaffneys catch has not been more emphasized for the fact that a replay official had a perfect look at it and couldn't get it right, and everyone else brushing it aside, because lets face it that was a huge play given the circumstances involved, to me screams fix. Not that the Pats wouldn't or couldn't have done it any way, but they weren't about to take that chance.

Such a quick decision from the replay booth? I don't think they wanted to spend much time raising scepticism and more replays of the catch which would make it more difficult to sweep under the rug.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by HOGTIMUS PRIME

It was as plain as day that that was not a catch, no doubt what so ever, I find it sceptical that no one in the booth really jumped on it, and that it took a replay official about 2 seconds to rule it a catch, although I think they score as well because of the penalties that ensued. It seemed to me the NFL is making sure the Pats run the table, which is a shame because their more than capable of doing it without their help. Kind of reminiscent to the job done by the ref's on Seattle in the SB 2 seasons ago.

The fact that Gaffneys catch has not been more emphasized for the fact that a replay official had a perfect look at it and couldn't get it right, and everyone else brushing it aside, because lets face it that was a huge play given the circumstances involved, to me screams fix. Not that the Pats wouldn't or couldn't have done it any way, but they weren't about to take that chance.

Such a quick decision from the replay booth? I don't think they wanted to spend much time raising scepticism and more replays of the catch which would make it more difficult to sweep under the rug.

Ok, I keep hearing that the NFL wants the Pats to win the SB. The Pats are not looked at by the public as a so called American team. They are far from that and very hard to market as they have a coach unliked in football and the team has that cheaters image on them. So can you give me any go reasons why the NFL would want (and by saying this stacking the cards against the other teams) the Pats to win the SB. Also to think this the NFL has to meet with the refs who do each of the Pats games to let them in on this little scam that you bring up.

[HOGTIMUS PRIME]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok, I keep hearing that the NFL wants the Pats to win the SB. The Pats are not looked at by the public as a so called American team. They are far from that and very hard to market as they have a coach unliked in football and the team has that cheaters image on them. So can you give me any go reasons why the NFL would want (and by saying this stacking the cards against the other teams) the Pats to win the SB. Also to think this the NFL has to meet with the refs who do each of the Pats games to let them in on this little scam that you bring up.

Its front page news, which is advertising dollars, no different than when baseball turned a blind eye on Pete Roses gambling during his hit streak trying to catch Dimaggio, baseball pulled him aside and told him to back off the gambling which he didn't, but because he was filling stadiums, and had every one glued to the TV the let it slide, so much for the integrity of the game.

Do you really think they have to tell a ref what they want? It's far to easy to control with the old wink and a nod. Don't under estimate the greed factor when big money is involved. Just take a look at basketball, that is not an isolated incident. I wont even get into boxing. The hierarchy of the NFL is about money not the thrill of competition unless that will make them more money.

[scowan]

I have a rules question from last night for you guys..... especially after the debacal of us calling two timeouts on Sunday. (I continue to be amazed by the lack of knowledge concerning the rules!) Here it is...... after the Ravens got mad at the end of the game and had all of those personal fouls which allowed the Pats to kickoff from the Raven's 30 yardline, why did the Pats kicker kick it out of the end zone and give the Ravens the ball at the 20? Would he not have been better served to kick it out of bounds? Don't the rules say that if you kick it out of bounds the other team gets it 30 yards from the place you kicked off? That would have been the 1 yard line or at least half the distance to the goal, the 10 yard line? What am I missing here. Does a special team coach not know this?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by scowan

I have a rules question from last night for you guys..... especially after the debacal of us calling two timeouts on Sunday. (I continue to be amazed by the lack of knowledge concerning the rules!) Here it is...... after the Ravens got mad at the end of the game and had all of those personal fouls which allowed the Pats to kickoff from the Raven's 30 yardline, why did the Pats kicker kick it out of the end zone and give the Ravens the ball at the 20? Would he not have been better served to kick it out of bounds? Don't the rules say that if you kick it out of bounds the other team gets it 30 yards from the place you kicked off? That would have been the 1 yard line or at least half the distance to the goal, the 10 yard line? What am I missing here. Does a special team coach not know this?

I think you get it at the 40 no matter where the ball goes out. That's why it's always such a disaster when it happens.