The Nation's Tears: Volume II

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Thanks for the replies on the phantom "morphed into a runner" argument. I knew it was ridiculous but the posts here helped me articulate my response, which was as follows:

I do not know if you care. This probably has more to do with being right. Though after mentioning that Brady lost within 7 seconds of seeing me for the first time in over a month, maybe you do care! But let's put that to the side, as it is indeed a side point. Similarly, whether this rule needs to be changed is of no concern to me in that I am dealing with what is, not what should be. To the main point, you continue to be spectacularly wrong about the James play. We don't need to speculate about the rule. Thanks to the internet, we have it right here: "A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps." Read that, take a deep breath, and tell me how James made a football move and thereby converted into a runner. Hint: Only a fan with a vested interest in the answer could conclude anything other than James remained a receiver. Last: I continue to get that it's just weird that when a runner crosses the goal line, he scores even if he later drops the ball, while a receiver only scores if he avoids the ground causing the ball to move AFTER he crosses the goal line. THAT should be your problem with this play, not some hocus pocus about James morhping into a runner.
Really, this otherwise intelligent Giants fan (I know, that takes a bit of a leap, but I am confident that he is just that), is (a) just butt hurt that his team is out and (b) incapable of admitting when he is wrong, so I suspect that he will continue to maintain that a football move was made. If and when that happens, I will have nothing left in the tank, because it's pure fantasy.

One of my first thoughts after the initial five minutes of delirium following the Rowe-Harmon pick was that the salty tears of the Pats haters were going to be delicious. The sum total of the Ed Bouchettes, Max Kellermans, Brian Billicks, NY backpages and various whiny ass fans of various teams has way exceeded my hopes. I should have known it would be this level of stupidity, as abject hatred knows no bounds.

As a fan of the Pats since Plunkett, I still keep waiting to wake up from this ridiculously awesome dream.

And PS: I know that the catch rule applies regardless of where on the field the receiver landed. What I wrote above could imply that I think otherwise.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
2,255
In the simulacrum
Ha, yeah he goes on and on about how the Patriots get all the calls then throws that in at the end.
Which is sort of the issue with the Cooks catch and why it would be pretty hard to overturn. Cooks clearly is making a priority out of firmly smothering and clamping down on the ball so overturning it would be awfully hard to do, even if there was some magical way to know that it moved. Cooks was covering the view and putting effort into control. James (who could have easily made ball control a priority) instead extends it out for all the world to see. Tough luck. Rainy day, maybe focus on controlling the ball next time?
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Thanks for the replies on the phantom "morphed into a runner" argument. I knew it was ridiculous but the posts here helped me articulate my response, which was as follows:



Really, this otherwise intelligent Giants fan (I know, that takes a bit of a leap, but I am confident that he is just that), is (a) just butt hurt that his team is out and (b) incapable of admitting when he is wrong, so I suspect that he will continue to maintain that a football move was made. If and when that happens, I will have nothing left in the tank, because it's pure fantasy.

One of my first thoughts after the initial five minutes of delirium following the Rowe-Harmon pick was that the salty tears of the Pats haters were going to be delicious. The sum total of the Ed Bouchettes, Max Kellermans, Brian Billicks, NY backpages and various whiny ass fans of various teams has way exceeded my hopes. I should have known it would be this level of stupidity, as abject hatred knows no bounds.

As a fan of the Pats since Plunkett, I still keep waiting to wake up from this ridiculously awesome dream.

And PS: I know that the catch rule applies regardless of where on the field the receiver landed. What I wrote above could imply that I think otherwise.
Tell your buddy even Eli disagrees with him
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
21,193
Saskatoon Canada
Which is sort of the issue with the Cooks catch and why it would be pretty hard to overturn. Cooks clearly is making a priority out of firmly smothering and clamping down on the ball so overturning it would be awfully hard to do, even if there was some magical way to know that it moved. Cooks was covering the view and putting effort into control. James (who could have easily made ball control a priority) instead extends it out for all the world to see. Tough luck. Rainy day, maybe focus on controlling the ball next time?
Cooks lands two feet in bounds with the ball in his hands. Is that not surviving the ground?

But, I will remind Boston fans we were sure Tim Tschida was in the pocket of the Yankees.

I ask myself how I would react if the Lakers, Habs or Yankees won a game this way.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
2,946
Bow, NH
Cooks lands two feet in bounds with the ball in his hands. Is that not surviving the ground?.
If he had not fallen, the yes the 2 feet down would be surviving the ground. But since he did fall, to be a catch he had to "survive the ground", meaning he had to maintain control of the ball--which means that the ball can't touch the ground.
 

Bergs

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
13,788
If he had not fallen, the yes the 2 feet down would be surviving the ground. But since he did fall, to be a catch he had to "survive the ground", meaning he had to maintain control of the ball--which means that the ball can't touch the ground.
The ball can touch the ground so long as the receiver maintains complete control of the ball. James didn't.
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
954
hoboken
Thanks for the replies on the phantom "morphed into a runner" argument. I knew it was ridiculous but the posts here helped me articulate my response, which was as follows:



Really, this otherwise intelligent Giants fan (I know, that takes a bit of a leap, but I am confident that he is just that), is (a) just butt hurt that his team is out and (b) incapable of admitting when he is wrong, so I suspect that he will continue to maintain that a football move was made. If and when that happens, I will have nothing left in the tank, because it's pure fantasy.

One of my first thoughts after the initial five minutes of delirium following the Rowe-Harmon pick was that the salty tears of the Pats haters were going to be delicious. The sum total of the Ed Bouchettes, Max Kellermans, Brian Billicks, NY backpages and various whiny ass fans of various teams has way exceeded my hopes. I should have known it would be this level of stupidity, as abject hatred knows no bounds.

As a fan of the Pats since Plunkett, I still keep waiting to wake up from this ridiculously awesome dream.

And PS: I know that the catch rule applies regardless of where on the field the receiver landed. What I wrote above could imply that I think otherwise.
I'm a bit confused by a bunch of replies in this thread. James' move upfield actually probably would make him a runner and most likely have the TD count if he wasn't going to the ground. If he has both feet down standing up, turns slightly like he did over the goal line and then the ball drops from his hands, it's probably a TD.

The whole thing that makes it not a catch is that he was going to the ground, not anything about him becoming a runner. He didn't survive the catch all the way to the ground, hence, incomplete. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the points here, but he absolutely would have morphed into a runner if he was standing when getting possession of the ball.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Cooks lands two feet in bounds with the ball in his hands. Is that not surviving the ground?

But, I will remind Boston fans we were sure Tim Tschida was in the pocket of the Yankees.

I ask myself how I would react if the Lakers, Habs or Yankees won a game this way.
I was sure that Tim Tschida was fantastically wrong. Which he was. Phantom tags. I did not at all think he was corrupt. People may have said that out of frustration but how many really believed it?

If the Lakers, Habs, Yankees, Jets or Giants won a game where a counter intuitive rule was called correctly, I would be very annoyed. Period.

The one time (other than the USSR basketball win in the Olympics) when I thought the refs were either corrupt or incompetent, and it cost my team a game, was the Ben Dreith fuck job on Ray Hamilton. That, coupled with the several other missed or ignored calls in that game, including when Vilipaiano mugged Russ Francis directly in front of a ref without PI being called, made me wonder.

There, however, it was not the correct application of a weird rule. Instead, Dreith saw roughing the passer where it simply did not occur. Ken Stabler later acknowledged as such. The fact that the flag came out only after the ball hit the ground out of bounds and the aforementioned Francis play fueled the fire about there being something nefarious going on.

Putting that aspect aside, to your point in bold, while the Steelers almost certainly would have won had the call not been overturned, they contributed mightily to the loss as well:

- Ben threw to a receiver who was not able to get out of bounds on second down;

- There was a coaching-QB failure on third down as to spike it versus fake spike it;

- Only one Pittsburgh skill player made himself available to Ben; and

- Ben made a foolish decision to throw to the middle of the field, a la Russell Wilson.

My point is that the Pats didn't win only off the back of the fortunate call. Pittsburgh's mishandling of the last sequence, and Butler on second down and Rowe-Harmon on third down, all played their parts in the outcome.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,668
If he had not fallen, the yes the 2 feet down would be surviving the ground. But since he did fall, to be a catch he had to "survive the ground", meaning he had to maintain control of the ball--which means that the ball can't touch the ground.
The thing with Cooks is that since he took pains to secure the ball there was no good angle that allowed the replay official to tell if he had lost control of the ball. The replay official has to see clear proof that the call was wrong to overturn it, and there was no good angle on the Cooks play, so the call on the field stood. Had the refs called the pass incomplete the call still would have stood due to the lack of a good angle.

The James situation is different as he reached out to put the ball over the goal line as he was coming down, and everyone can see the ball bounce as he hits the ground. Not that difficult a call to make. James should have secured the damned ball first.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
We’re not doing catch rules again already this week, are we?

Can’t people read the existing two or three thoroughly in-depth explanations already kicking around the forum this week?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
We’re not doing catch rules again already this week, are we?

Can’t people read the existing two or three thoroughly in-depth explanations already kicking around the forum this week?
Meh, it's not about catch rules per se. It's about the delicious tears in the eyes of those who are using this particular play as their latest "Pats got lucky; Pats get all the breaks; Pats continually get the crazy calls; Pats are just icky; I don't like the Pats' faces" rants.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,037
I was sure that Tim Tschida was fantastically wrong. Which he was. Phantom tags. I did not at all think he was corrupt. People may have said that out of frustration but how many really believed it?

If the Lakers, Habs, Yankees, Jets or Giants won a game where a counter intuitive rule was called correctly, I would be very annoyed. Period.

The one time (other than the USSR basketball win in the Olympics) when I thought the refs were either corrupt or incompetent, and it cost my team a game, was the Ben Dreith fuck job on Ray Hamilton. That, coupled with the several other missed or ignored calls in that game, including when Vilipaiano mugged Russ Francis directly in front of a ref without PI being called, made me wonder.

There, however, it was not the correct application of a weird rule. Instead, Dreith saw roughing the passer where it simply did not occur. Ken Stabler later acknowledged as such. The fact that the flag came out only after the ball hit the ground out of bounds and the aforementioned Francis play fueled the fire about there being something nefarious going on.

Putting that aspect aside, to your point in bold, while the Steelers almost certainly would have won had the call not been overturned, they contributed mightily to the loss as well:

- Ben threw to a receiver who was not able to get out of bounds on second down;

- There was a coaching-QB failure on third down as to spike it versus fake spike it;

- Only one Pittsburgh skill player made himself available to Ben; and

- Ben made a foolish decision to throw to the middle of the field, a la Russell Wilson.

My point is that the Pats didn't win only off the back of the fortunate call. Pittsburgh's mishandling of the last sequence, and Butler on second down and Rowe-Harmon on third down, all played their parts in the outcome.
With regards to the Ben Dreith game, consider the following:

- Late in the 2nd quarter, the Pats had 2nd-and-6 on the Oakland 36. Run Sam Cunningham a couple of times, and a field goal is likely, which would have put the Pats up 10-3. Instead, the Pats call a trick play with Russ Francis throwing a pass on an end around. The pass was predictably intercepted with 2:27 left, and the Raiders two minute offense subsequently drove 76 yards for a TD that put them up 10-7.

- The first Pats drive in the 4th quarter went 3-and-out. Make a first down there and it's possible that there would be no time for the roughing the passer play to even happen.

- The second Pats drive in the 4th quarter started in awesome field position at the Oakland 48, and with a 4 point lead. But the drive stalled and resulted in John Smith missing a 50 yard field goal. IIRC correctly, the Pats had a first down on the Oakland 28, but it was called back as someone on the Pats offensive line was lined up offsides.

- In the final Oakland drive, after the infamous roughing-the-passer call, the Patriots got called for a needless and unnecessary personal foul that set up a first down at the 2 yard line with 37 seconds to go. Without the penalty, it likely would have been 4th-and-inches at the 4 yard line with the clock ticking away.

The officiating was indeed incompetent. NFL officials were not trained very well back then, and assignment to playoff games was very much done through the "old boys" network as opposed to merit. But the Pats had certainly squandered their opportunities to win the game as well.

I agree with you that the fix was definitely in on the Soviet vs. USA basketball game in 1972. This point is actually not debatable.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
With regards to the Ben Dreith game, consider the following:

- Late in the 2nd quarter, the Pats had 2nd-and-6 on the Oakland 36. Run Sam Cunningham a couple of times, and a field goal is likely, which would have put the Pats up 10-3. Instead, the Pats call a trick play with Russ Francis throwing a pass on an end around. The pass was predictably intercepted with 2:27 left, and the Raiders two minute offense subsequently drove 76 yards for a TD that put them up 10-7.

- The first Pats drive in the 4th quarter went 3-and-out. Make a first down there and it's possible that there would be no time for the roughing the passer play to even happen.

- The second Pats drive in the 4th quarter started in awesome field position at the Oakland 48, and with a 4 point lead. But the drive stalled and resulted in John Smith missing a 50 yard field goal. IIRC correctly, the Pats had a first down on the Oakland 28, but it was called back as someone on the Pats offensive line was lined up offsides.

- In the final Oakland drive, after the infamous roughing-the-passer call, the Patriots got called for a needless and unnecessary personal foul that set up a first down at the 2 yard line with 37 seconds to go. Without the penalty, it likely would have been 4th-and-inches at the 4 yard line with the clock ticking away.

The officiating was indeed incompetent. NFL officials were not trained very well back then, and assignment to playoff games was very much done through the "old boys" network as opposed to merit. But the Pats had certainly squandered their opportunities to win the game as well.

I agree with you that the fix was definitely in on the Soviet vs. USA basketball game in 1972. This point is actually not debatable.
Thanks for the knowledge. I will admit to having forgotten most of that. Still, my default position will be to continue to hate Ben Dreith unconditionally. But your points move him a few notches closer to earth on the Hell-o-Meter.

On a slightly more serious basis, your post is along the lines of a point that I made above. While it's true that the call in this game snatched victory away from the Steelers (and rightfully so), it's also true that they had their chances at the end to right the perceived wrong and whiffed. It's rare indeed when a blown call is THE reason why a team loses a game.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,190
The moron from Pittsburgh fails to mention the Gronk catch that was upheld as an incompletion. That was an actual touchdown.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
903
The one time (other than the USSR basketball win in the Olympics) when I thought the refs were either corrupt or incompetent, and it cost my team a game, was the Ben Dreith fuck job on Ray Hamilton.
The regular season loss @DEN 2015 was the one time I've been legitimately beside myself over the officiating in a sports contest since I was a teenager in the 1980s. In no way do I think the refs were corruptly or consciously acting against the Patriots. But I do think some group-think mindfuck descended upon them from the crowd at Mile High after the key fumbled punt return in that game: there had been so little for Broncos fans to cheer about up to that moment..., then a huge release of jubilation once journeyman idiot Chris Harper muffed the return.... is it crazy to suppose that some kind of weird unconscious social sympathy overtook the zebras from that point on? It seems the only way to account for how one-sided the officiating was (really, was there a more maddening regular season BB-era loss?). It made me imagine that future generations of social scientists will manage to isolate specific kinds of events or circumstances that completely sway referees towards one side or another.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
34,726
The regular season loss @DEN 2015 was the one time I've been legitimately beside myself over the officiating in a sports contest since I was a teenager in the 1980s. In no way do I think the refs were corruptly or consciously acting against the Patriots. But I do think some group-think mindfuck descended upon them from the crowd at Mile High after the key fumbled punt return in that game: there had been so little for Broncos fans to cheer about up to that moment..., then a huge release of jubilation once journeyman idiot Chris Harper muffed the return.... is it crazy to suppose that some kind of weird unconscious social sympathy overtook the zebras from that point on? It seems the only way to account for how one-sided the officiating was (really, was there a more maddening regular season BB-era loss?). It made me imagine that future generations of social scientists will manage to isolate specific kinds of events or circumstances that completely sway referees towards one side or another.
I’ll submit the 2012 regular season loss to the Ravens. That one really pissed me off.
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
18,183
6 miles from Angel Stadium
The Patriots 20th division title passed the San Francisco 49ers who have 19. The Pats only trail Dallas (22) and Pittsburgh (23) for most division titles of all time.
I'm an old guy who watched Patriots games at Fenway. I lived through Billy Sullivan and his kids. I was at opening night at Schafer Stadium. 20 division titles? This is remarkable given the first 20 or 30 years of this franchise.
I remember sitting right behind the bench when Tom Landry and the Cowboys came to town. The uniforms, the aura, the hate. I was in awe. Must be how they feel in other towns now when the GOAT coach and QB show up.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Here is a different angle of the moment of truth in the James play.
Very obvious there is no control of the ball here.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I just saw it a little while ago in Michael Hurley's article on CBS Boston. It's on Getty Images so any news organization has access to it but I haven't seen it anywhere else.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,829
I just saw it a little while ago in Michael Hurley's article on CBS Boston. It's on Getty Images so any news organization has access to it but I haven't seen it anywhere else.
Holy crap, read through Hurley's timeline, especially where the dolt is saying Roethlisberger isn't allowed to call a TO, then shows a part of an article that DIRECTLY SAYS HE'S WRONG but says the article says the opposite of that. It's fucking amazing. Twitter makes people idiots.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,907
Needham, MA
I’ll submit the 2012 regular season loss to the Ravens. That one really pissed me off.
Wasn't that game officiated by the replacement refs with the regular ones on strike? If I am thinking of the right game, that was the most grossly incompetent display of officiating I can ever remember.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
23,752
Here
Wasn't that game officiated by the replacement refs with the regular ones on strike? If I am thinking of the right game, that was the most grossly incompetent display of officiating I can ever remember.
That was as mad as I’ve ever been after a football game. It took me hours to calm down and it was like midnight when the game ended. There was also the fun dynamic of Austin being in the booth shitting all over the scabs because he supported his old union. Those poor replacement refs got a pretty raw deal.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
If that is the one wher Belichick is yelling at official as they run off the field because of the field goal at the end, it’s the replacement ref one.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
6,469
Westwood MA
Here is a different angle of the moment of truth in the James play.
Very obvious there is no control of the ball here.
Talk about a money shot; anyone with more than a two ounce brain and a IQ higher than plant life who sees that picture and still insists this is a catch is beyond hope.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
14,351
Talk about a money shot; anyone with more than a two ounce brain and a IQ higher than plant life who sees that picture and still insists this is a catch is beyond hope.
But he made a football move and it felt like a catch, plus he broke the plane! I mean none of that's in the rules, but it should be the rule! /Tomlin

Seriously though, that's really a great shot and the first time I've seen it.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,829
But he made a football move
Guy at work said this. Ignoring that a "football move" isn't a thing any longer, I asked him what the football move was. He said "the lunge". When I asked if a player has to actually complete the football move he stared at me for a second and said something like "if it looks like a catch, it's a catch."

I'm printing out that pic tomorrow and putting it on his desk. He's not a Steelers fan, so I don't feel too bad.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
14,351
Big Ben should give Brown a card for getting him hurt with his horribly under thrown pass in the middle of the end zone. I'd say it was his worst pass in the middle of the end zone, but it's still early in the game.
 
Jan 30, 2017
153
If he had not fallen, the yes the 2 feet down would be surviving the ground. But since he did fall, to be a catch he had to "survive the ground", meaning he had to maintain control of the ball--which means that the ball can't touch the ground.
Isn't this the very reason professionals are coached to avoid reaching or strechting for the pylon or goal line unless it's necessary to score the td or conversion on? Situational football, as an old friend of ours would say.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
14,351
Plus it was face guarding, should’ve called DPI.
Thanks for the flashbacks. Did you see the play in the game where the Pitt WR decided to stiff arm and hold the CB's arm down when he made a great ONE HANDED CATCH? No OPI there, actually should have been DPI!

I'm so sick of the NFL being in the bag for the Patriots.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
21,193
Saskatoon Canada
I was sure that Tim Tschida was fantastically wrong. Which he was. Phantom tags. I did not at all think he was corrupt.

The one time (other than the USSR basketball win in the Olympics) when I thought the refs were either corrupt or incompetent, and it cost my team a game, was t.
The 72 Summit series where Canada beat the Soviets in hockey was incredibly bad. Those 3 straight win IN MOSCOW DURING THE COLD WAR are as great an accomplishment of any in sports.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,124
Portsmouth, NH
If that is the one wher Belichick is yelling at official as they run off the field because of the field goal at the end, it’s the replacement ref one.
I thought the one where BB was yelling at the ref was at Carolina when they threw the flag on a PI on Gronk and then picked it up with no explanation? Or was that game the one Brady chased him off the field?
 

c_yesterday

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
51
Portland, OR
I thought the one where BB was yelling at the ref was at Carolina when they threw the flag on a PI on Gronk and then picked it up with no explanation? Or was that game the one Brady chased him off the field?
Pretty sure Mallett was the one yelling at the refs as they jogged off the field in the Carolina game. The juxtaposition of his anger and the pom-pom on his hat at the time has always stuck in my mind.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,124
Portsmouth, NH
Yeah you’re right. Thinking back it was definitely the Baltimore game with the questionable field goal when BB grabbed the ref and caught all kinds of heat. And yes, I remember Mallet as well. My bad.
 

c_yesterday

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
51
Portland, OR
Not trying to call you out at all PP. I enjoy these trips down memory lane, good or bad, because they feel widely shared on one level, but also because I like revisiting my individual memories of these moments. For whatever reason, Mallett yelling at the ref is my main memory of that Carolina game, but I also remember little things like who I was dating then, and that I got a seat on the couch at the bar that night. These things are fun for me, YMMV.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,124
Portsmouth, NH
Not all at all man, I was just mixing the two up and you’re absolutely right. Weird thing is I remembered a backup qb jawing a ref and couldn’t think of what game. I enjoy it too. Thinking back I can actually remember where I was for both games. On my couch in one city for the Baltimore game, screaming at the tv and at a bar In another city screaming about the Carolina game. And like you say, it’s fun.
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
Pretty sure Mallett was the one yelling at the refs as they jogged off the field in the Carolina game. The juxtaposition of his anger and the pom-pom on his hat at the time has always stuck in my mind.
I don’t remember Mallett but I vividly remember Brady chasing down the ref off the field he so pissed.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I don’t remember Mallett but I vividly remember Brady chasing down the ref off the field he so pissed.
Mallet was there because as someone above said. He was running along Brady like a little brother also jawing at the ref with the Pom Pom on his hat bouncing around.
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
3,375
Not all at all man, I was just mixing the two up and you’re absolutely right. Weird thing is I remembered a backup qb jawing a ref and couldn’t think of what game. I enjoy it too. Thinking back I can actually remember where I was for both games. On my couch in one city for the Baltimore game, screaming at the tv and at a bar In another city screaming about the Carolina game. And like you say, it’s fun.
I remember the Gillette crowd just showering down Bull Sh*t from the stands most of the evening and trying not to laugh in front of my nine year old son. Yeah, that game was infuriating.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
6,469
Westwood MA
Three days later and Steeler fans are still whining about this, let it go already.

The ironic part of Steeler fans whining over this is their 1970's dynasty was launched thanks to the immaculate reception, a play which was illegal at the time as the ball could not hit an offensive player and be caught directly by another offensive player.

Show me all the Zapruder frame by frame film you want, that ball hit the receiver after he was waxed by the Oakland defensive back, flew through the air and was caught by Franco Harris for the touchdown.

Unlike this past Sunday, the referees at the time did not get the call right as they were afraid if they waved off the touchdown, they never would have gotten out of the stadium alive.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,180
The complaining here is pretty weak, given that all three NFL Ref Supervisors quickly and unequivocally agreed the call was right, and there is close to indisputable photographic evidence supporting the call.

I get that many fans are really complaining about the rule and not the call (and I'm sympathetic to that as the 'catch rule' now is messy) and others don't care about what the rules are. But it's still weak sauce given the unanimity of the actual expert opinion.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,872
Is the Baltimore game everyone is referring to that one with the last second field goal that went over the right upright?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.