G0ddamn m0therfocking refs

[p.man 7]

First of all, the Ref had no idea that Folk missed the kick. So, there is no way the refs decided this outcome.

As soon as Folk kicks the ball, the ref starts to reach for the flag while looking towards the Line of scrimmage and not the goal post.

 

Watch the ref...The ball was barely kicked as the ref was reaching for the flag.

And...Folk has made a fg from that range and has been on fire this year. His accuracy has been dead on target. I do not blame Rex for trying to beat the Pats while the opportunity is there. Yes there is risk but you have lost to the Pats 6 straight games.

You Play To Win The Game!!! Again,The Ref Had No Idea The Kick Was Missed.

 

Look At The Ref! He had no idea the kick was missed...

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=331020020

[parrot 789]

they cheated and lost. get over it.

I am over it, they didn't deserve to win... but I'm right and you know I'm right. The tuck rule was absolutely the correct call down to the letter and intent of the rule, yet people are still bitching about it a dozen years later. If this call had been made in favor of the Pats, people's heads would have exploded.

 

Btw, the tuck rule didn't happen in the AFC Championship. HTH.

[Cruzer 1,995]

 

 

Quote

During a field-goal attempt or a try kick: (1) No more than six Team B players may be on the line of scrimmage on either side of the snapper at the snap; Penalty: For illegal formation by the defense, loss of 5 yards from the previous spot. (2) Team B players not on the line of scrimmage at the snap cannot push players on the line of scrimmage into the offensive formation. Penalty: For unnecessary roughness, loss of 15 yards from the previous spot.

 

I'm not seeing this language anywhere in the rule book. The versions I've seen only state that Team B playes can not push their teammates into the line of scrimmage. Where is the part of 'not on the line of scrimmage' found at?

[parrot 789]

I'm not seeing this language anywhere in the rule book. The versions I've seen only state that Team B playes can not push their teammates into the line of scrimmage. Where is the part of 'not on the line of scrimmage' found at?

It was on NFL.com and restated in a video that was posted to explain the intent of the new rule. It was immediately edited after the game yesterday. Here's a cached version;

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000237712/article/new-nfl-rules-overloading-line-restriction-will-protect-linemen

[Cruzer 1,995]

It was on NFL.com and restated in a video that was posted to explain the intent of the new rule. It was immediately edited after the game yesterday. Here's a cached version;

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000237712/article/new-nfl-rules-overloading-line-restriction-will-protect-linemen

Strange that the official NFL Rule Book has nothing supporting or stating it. Looks like Belichick has admitted he was wrong as well.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000267382/article/bill-belichick-admits-he-was-wrong-in-patriots-game

[Franknbeans 46]

I am over it, they didn't deserve to win... but I'm right and you know I'm right. The tuck rule was absolutely the correct call down to the letter and intent of the rule, yet people are still bitching about it a dozen years later. If this call had been made in favor of the Pats, people's heads would have exploded.

 

Btw, the tuck rule didn't happen in the AFC Championship. HTH.

It does but if you can't see the irony of losing over a call that was made "to the letter and intent of the rule" then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Spare me the hyperbole over people's head exploding. You're starting to sound like the morning guys on WEEI who all thought the ref had it in for the Pats. This is the problem many other fans have with Pats fans in general. When the Pats lose, there is rarely any introspection about the Pats themselves and how they might have been, as you put it, not deserving of the win. It's always someone else's fault. Luckily, we don't put up with it very often because the Pats usually win but man, is it nauseating when they do falter.

[Matt Mueller 147]

Pats fans should be looking at one dude for that game and it's not a ref.

 

Brady did not play well.

[Matt Mueller 147]

Reading that article it seems the Pats players were warned during the games. I feel less bad about possibly stealing this one but full acknowledged 2 of the Jets wins have nearly been handed to them.

[p.man 7]

Pats should be looking at one dude for that game and it's not a ref.

 

Brady did not play well.

Yes..And when he did make a nice throw, Gronk tried to catch it with 1 hand and couldn't make the catch.

[p.man 7]

Reading that article it seems the Pats players were warned during the games. I feel less bad about possibly stealing this one but full acknowledged 2 of the Jets wins have nearly been handed to them.

In this league you have to be good and also have some calls go your way.

One thing is for sure...The Jets have found their Qb. Go Geno! Nice run for the Td too.

[Matt Mueller 147]

That td run epic. Jets have found their qb.

 

G E N O. Jets!

[Dan 66]

The most likely scenario is the Refs saw the Pats doing this earlier in the game and decided before the play that they were going to call it. Rex was probably in their ear on it too--honestly, wouldn't it have been incredibly focking stupid to attempt a 56 yard field goal there unless he thought there was a good chance he'd get bailed out?

 

Which makes it all the more absurd IMO, and nearly makes the game fixed as the refs had intent to sway a game-deciding play before it even occurred.

 

Do you know how singular and homer this comment sounds? Are you really not aware that Belichick is a master of working the refs, pointing out the rules the other team breaks to alert the refs to it. He's been doing it for years, sometimes to great benefit.

 

I don't know if Ryan did that or not, but if he did, deal with it; it was good coaching, if that's the case.

[Dan 66]

 

Yeah, and if that call had gone in the Pats favor, instead of against them, many people currently defending it as a perfectly legit call would be having a brain hemorrhage over the injustice and travesty of it all.

 

And Patriots' fans would be talking about "the rule being the rule."

 

Such a hypocrite.

[Dan 66]

Reading that article it seems the Pats players were warned during the games. I feel less bad about possibly stealing this one but full acknowledged 2 of the Jets wins have nearly been handed to them.

 

Don't feel badly. The Patriots have had two games handed to them, as well. The standings are still correct.

[kennymaine 4]

Its perfect. Brady rule. Don't forget what he created. Pansy!!

[kennymaine 4]

Lets not forget tuck rule. Comes around goes around. Suck it up

[Dan 66]

Oh please, shut the ###### up with this ######. The Patriots have been victimized with bad calls and bad bounces just like every other team; the helmet catch is a perfect example of both as multiple defenders were nearly undressed by the holds from the Giants O line, and Tyree made one of the least likely catches in the history of the game.

 

And yeah, the Patriots gave up 30 points to the Jets. Quite the feat seeing as how they were only missing their two best defensive linemen, their best linebacker (and leading tackler), and best corner.

 

The irony about the penalty finally being called at that point, is not just about what point it was in the game, but that when they finally decided to call it, it wasn't even the scenario they were trying to prevent. The league website had (taken down since yesterday) both a written explanation and a video that made it clear the rule was intended to prevent second level defenders from running into the line from behind and pushing. Well that's not what happened yesterday, Jones was on the line and basically ran a stunt. Just a real flimsy implementation of the rule for the first time it was ever called and at such a critical point in the game.

 

Spoken like a Patriot fan.

 

I understand that there have been bounces and calls that haven't gone the Patriots' way, but the overall feel is that the bounces and inches have favored them. Get into calls . . . just stop with your dramatic defensiveness and remember that Brady is your QB. As such, he gets calls. Period. He and a few other QBs have this aura of "don't breathe hard on them" that has existed for years. You can choose to ignore that - lash out at anyone who observes it - but in your rational moments, you know I'm right. Brady, Manning, Brees . . . there isn't even a question. There is a favoritism that's nauseating to fans of the rest of the NFL. Deal with it.

 

And I pointed out the defensive effort only because the focus was on a singular play that never should have happened. I'm well aware of their injury issues. But it is the essence of IRONY to listen to ANY Patriots fan decrying the correct application of this rule, and ignoring all the other factors involved.

 

So, carry on . . .

[jgcrawfish 232]

This thread is just rife with excuses, karma and failure. The Pats gave up a ton of points to a team that's scoring challenged, cheated at the end, then whined (along with their fans) that the cheating call went against them. All this from a team that has benefited more from questionable calls and flat out cheating than anybody else probably ever. Nicely done.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,511]

 

Really odd. I thought this site was FANTASY Football Today.

 

Maybe "someone" DOES care about fantasy here.

 

 

He's been drinking again. It appears that wine coolers+bad calls make worms pissed off Pats fan.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

This thread is just rife with excuses, karma and failure. The Pats gave up a ton of points to a team that's scoring challenged, cheated at the end, then whined (along with their fans) that the cheating call went against them. All this from a team that has benefited more from questionable calls and flat out cheating than anybody else probably ever. Nicely done.

Difference is that the Pats actually broke a rule yesterday, as opposed to the made up tuck rule and actual video cheating. It was not karma, it was just another example of the cheating Pats wanting their way.

[parrot 789]

 

And Patriots' fans would be talking about "the rule being the rule."

 

Such a hypocrite.

 

 

Let me totally clear here, I don't really have a problem with the call knowing the wording of the rule. As stated in the rule book, what the Pats did WAS illegal and thus the call was correct. My only issue is the other information PUT OUT BY THE NFL AND POSTED TO THEIR WEBSITE that only served to confuse what the rule actually was, and choosing the time and manner they did to enforce it the way they did. It seems quite possible that there was some genuine confusion over how the rule was going to be enforced and it might have been cool if it didn't have to cost the Pats the game to have that clarified.

 

That's the difference between this and all the "TUCK RULE!" idiots who are still b!tching 12 years later about the Patriots getting the benefit of a call that was CLEARLY the correct call if you actually read the rule.

[jgcrawfish 232]

From profootballtalk:

 

Willie Colon: Officials warned Patriots not to push on field goals

Posted by Michael David Smith on October 21, 2013, 4:27 PM EDT

 

The Patriots’ penalty for illegally pushing on a field goal block attempt in overtime came to many NFL fans as a surprise because it was the first time that particular penalty had ever been called in a game. But Jets offensive lineman Willie Colon says it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the Patriots.

In fact, Colon told Newsday that he overheard the officials say that they had warned the Patriots on a previous field-goal attempt about the pushing penalty.

If that’s true, it’s stunning that the Patriots still committed the penalty after the officials had already warned them. It’s also unclear why the officials didn’t throw a flag previously, if they had seen the Patriots break the rule. (The Jets had two field-goal attempts before the penalty in overtime, both good, both from 37 yards.)

The Patriots appeared to get away with the same penalty last week against the Saints, and there’s been talk that Jets coach Rex Ryan may have tipped the officials off to the Patriots’ habit of illegally pushing on field-goal block attempts. Ryan declined to answer when asked about that at his press conference today.

What we can say for sure is that New England won’t have to be warned again. Everyone on the Patriots’ roster and coaching staff has learned that rule the hard way.

 

 

 

If this is at all true, Pats and their whiny-ass fans have nothing to b!tch about. Don't cheat if you don't want to get called for cheating.

[parrot 789]

Difference is that the Pats actually broke a rule yesterday, as opposed to the made up tuck rule and actual video cheating. It was not karma, it was just another example of the cheating Pats wanting their way.

 

So we're just flat out lying now huh? There was nothing "made up" about the tuck rule - other than the fact that every rule is "made up" at some point, or there wouldn't be any focking rules. It had been in the rule book a lot longer than this has.

[SexyRexy 60]

whining about the pats getting robbed by the refs is a joke.

 

they are the biggest beneficiaries of calls and non calls in the history of the nFL

[TimmySmith 2,783]

 

So we're just flat out lying now huh? There was nothing "made up" about the tuck rule - other than the fact that every rule is "made up" at some point, or there wouldn't be any focking rules. It had been in the rule book a lot longer than this has.

Not lying, whining, just like your cheating coach. And every hour today something more comes out about the incident yesterday that makes your case worse and worse. Give it up, whiner, you lost.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Is anyone seriously thinking Ryan went for the 56 harder expecting a call? I can't fathom that.

 

What I can fathom is being stupid enough to risk the kick and giving the Brady in prime position.

 

What's been lost in this is the debacle that is the Jets in game coaching.

I can't fathom that he's that stupid.

 

What was his kicker's career long? It was darn well under 56 yards IIRC. Regardless that is a low percentage field goal for anyone and the risk is you give Brady the ball back with optimum field position on the 40 yard line.

 

Are you telling me Rex is really that dumb?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

First of all, the Ref had no idea that Folk missed the kick. So, there is no way the refs decided this outcome.

As soon as Folk kicks the ball, the ref starts to reach for the flag while looking towards the Line of scrimmage and not the goal post.

 

Watch the ref...The ball was barely kicked as the ref was reaching for the flag.

And...Folk has made a fg from that range and has been on fire this year. His accuracy has been dead on target. I do not blame Rex for trying to beat the Pats while the opportunity is there. Yes there is risk but you have lost to the Pats 6 straight games.

You Play To Win The Game!!! Again,The Ref Had No Idea The Kick Was Missed.

 

Look At The Ref! He had no idea the kick was missed...

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=331020020

It doesn't matter dummy. If the Jets make the kick then they simply decline the penalty. If they miss, well that's OK because the refs are gonna make sure they win anyway

[parrot 789]

Not lying, whining, just like your cheating coach. And every hour today something more comes out about the incident yesterday that makes your case worse and worse. Give it up, whiner, you lost.

You mean the case where I said it was "the call was correct."

 

Maybe work on the reading if you plan to continue with this internet thing guy. Just a tip.

[Dan 66]

 

 

Let me totally clear here, I don't really have a problem with the call knowing the wording of the rule. As stated in the rule book, what the Pats did WAS illegal and thus the call was correct. My only issue is the other information PUT OUT BY THE NFL AND POSTED TO THEIR WEBSITE that only served to confuse what the rule actually was, and choosing the time and manner they did to enforce it the way they did. It seems quite possible that there was some genuine confusion over how the rule was going to be enforced and it might have been cool if it didn't have to cost the Pats the game to have that clarified.

 

That's the difference between this and all the "TUCK RULE!" idiots who are still b!tching 12 years later about the Patriots getting the benefit of a call that was CLEARLY the correct call if you actually read the rule.

 

"Clearly" was defined as taking 10 minutes under the hood, breaking it down to the narrowest frame to make a call that begged a lot of questions about the validity of the rule. The Tuck Rule was technically correct. The "spirit of the rule?" Oh, heavens. You resorting to name-calling makes for a very lackluster defense of a thread that is embarrassing.

 

That said, I agree that the NFL made a PR massacre of the situation by posting the incorrect description. Note: the rulebook was never wrong, and what the coaches, players and refs knew was accurate. Only we on the outside were given the misinformation.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Although I will say that if the Pats were warned earlier in the game and still did the same thing, then I retract my complaint about the refs.

[tanatastic 2,062]

The game of football has become way to "soft" for me. Without alcohol and a group of people the games would be unwatchable. We wait 5 minutes to see if a TD was really scored or a turn over really occurred. Where is the enjoyment in watching a game that needs slow motion, frame by frame analysis to determine what happened? The games gets longer but we see less action and more commercials. If it weren't for FF I would not watch at all.

i havent seen a single commercial all season and when theres a break in the action I immediately see some other breaking action. Its called Redzone channel. Theres simply no other way to watch football. theres no ticket, theres no local, just Redzone. Live it, love it. Period.

[Dan 66]

I can't fathom that he's that stupid.

 

What was his kicker's career long? It was darn well under 56 yards IIRC. Regardless that is a low percentage field goal for anyone and the risk is you give Brady the ball back with optimum field position on the 40 yard line.

 

Are you telling me Rex is really that dumb?

 

His career long is 56. He's hit 50-yarders a number of times; he has a strong leg.

 

He's 54.2% in field goals 50 yards and longer.

 

He has not officially attempted one longer than 50 this year.

[parrot 789]

"Clearly" was defined as taking 10 minutes under the hood, breaking it down to the narrowest frame to make a call that begged a lot of questions about the validity of the rule. The Tuck Rule was technically correct. The "spirit of the rule?" Oh, heavens. You resorting to name-calling makes for a very lackluster defense of a thread that is embarrassing.

 

That said, I agree that the NFL made a PR massacre of the situation by posting the incorrect description. Note: the rulebook was never wrong, and what the coaches, players and refs knew was accurate. Only we on the outside were given the misinformation.

I resorted to name-calling? I'm pretty sure you called me "a hypocrite". And there are blanket aspersions thrown at "Pats fans" throughout this thread. I have no problem responding in kind.

 

How do we know what the coaches and teams were given exactly? Yes they get the rule book, but I believe they also get memos and other information intended to expand upon rule changes and points of emphasis. And if any of that info contained wording like that on the website, there's the problem. Belichick got hold of the "second level stuff" somewhere.

[parrot 789]

Although I will say that if the Pats were warned earlier in the game and still did the same thing, then I retract my complaint about the refs.

Absolutely. The ref says don't do it, don't do it.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

 

His career long is 56. He's hit 50-yarders a number of times; he has a strong leg.

 

He's 54.2% in field goals 50 yards and longer.

Just barely over 50% for his career. Better odds than I thought but still very far from preferable.

[Dan 66]

I resorted to name-calling? I'm pretty sure you called me "a hypocrite". And there are blanket aspersions thrown at "Pats fans" throughout this thread. I have no problem responding in kind.

 

How do we know what the coaches and teams were given exactly? Yes they get the rule book, but I believe they also get memos and other information intended to expand upon rule changes and points of emphasis. And if any of that info contained wording like that on the website, there's the problem. Belichick got hold of the "second level stuff" somewhere.

 

 

1) I called you a hypocrite, because your comment was hypocritical. If you need me to go back and quote all your posts, I'll be glad to. You suggested that non-Patriots fans would have been crying if it had been for the Patriots, suggesting in your wording that somehow Patriots' fans would hold themselves above the noise? I suppose I could find a kinder word, but it won't change what that is.

 

2) Personally, I know because Tom Brady said so on WEEI this morning. Sorry I can't link that, but he described the process regarding rule changes.

[Dan 66]

Just barely over 50% for his career. Better odds than I thought but still very far from preferable.

 

Not ideal, for sure. I just wanted you to have the stats to work with.

[gcmmidwest 149]

Forgive him father for he knows not what he says .., he doesn't mean to take your name in vein

[parrot 789]

 

 

1) I called you a hypocrite, because your comment was hypocritical. If you need me to go back and quote all your posts, I'll be glad to. You suggested that non-Patriots fans would have been crying if it had been for the Patriots, suggesting in your wording that somehow Patriots' fans would hold themselves above the noise? I suppose I could find a kinder word, but it won't change what that is.

 

2) Personally, I know because Tom Brady said so on WEEI this morning. Sorry I can't link that, but he described the process regarding rule changes.

Go ahead and quote what you want. When it comes to our teams I think we're all a little hypocritical, but I said multiple times that this was a correct call. Tuck rule=correct, Pushing=correct. You want to point out some hypocrisy there, knock yourself out. I also know that if this call had gone to the benefit of the Pats, many people here defending this call would be losing their minds. That was the point, and you know I'm right in that. That's hypocrisy.

 

And I call the idiots idiots because they're still saying idiotic things 12 years later.

[Dan 66]

Tuck rule=correct, Pushing=correct. You want to point out some hypocrisy there, knock yourself out. I also know that if this call had gone to the benefit of the Pats, many people here defending this call would be losing their minds. That was the point, and you know I'm right in that. That's hypocrisy.

 

 

I never said otherwise, parrot, regarding the two rules. And I won't contend that there would a number of people all over it if the Pats' had benefited from this one. But stop pretending that the Pats' fans would have taken the high road in that situation. They would NOT have, and you know I'M right.

Your comment was defensive, and really looked ridiculous as a defense. The accusation was . . . hypocritical. If you would prefer specious and inane, you could use those instead.

 

And you probably need to drop the "idiot" moniker that you so freely dole out. The Tuck Rule Game was historic, and will be talked about forever. Learn to deal with it, or you will come off looking the child. The Immaculate Reception is a lot older, and it's still talked about, and you can still find people who believe that the Raiders got jobbed there, too. Trust me, I know.