The Nation's Tears: Volume II

Status
Not open for further replies.

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,904
Michigan
Keyshawn Johnson on NFL Primetime on the Cooks PI call: “The New England Patriots are going to get calls. That’s just simple and plain.”
He earlier said that call was a bad one because the ball was uncatchable.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,964
Keyshawn Johnson on NFL Primetime on the Cooks PI call: “The New England Patriots are going to get calls. That’s just simple and plain.”
He earlier said that call was a bad one because the ball was uncatchable.
Yes like the Gronk-Kuechly play from 2013 - it's uncatchable because the defender rode the receiver out of the play.
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
18,911
I love the bitching about no offensive holding calls, like the Jags weren't doing the same thing every play. Also, the delay of game. The clock was on zero, bro.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
49,838
Keyshawn Johnson on NFL Primetime on the Cooks PI call: “The New England Patriots are going to get calls. That’s just simple and plain.”
He earlier said that call was a bad one because the ball was uncatchable.
Whatever. If there was this conspiracy, they would have said Lewis didn't fumble. That call, had it been overturned, would have been just as iffy as others they claim show that the Pats get every call.

It's stupid because it makes the people saying it look dumb.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
10,295
San Francisco
Whatever. If there was this conspiracy, they would have said Lewis didn't fumble. That call, had it been overturned, would have been just as iffy as others they claim show that the Pats get every call.

It's stupid because it makes the people saying it look dumb.
But they are dumb.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,275
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
There was a play early in the game where I think it was Amendola was held AND interfered with on the same play. Yet no one is commenting on THAT non call.

And that is one of the most obvious PI calls ever. Bouye had two hands on Cooks shoving him away from the route and out of bounds. He wasnt running him out, he was using two hands to direct him there while the ball is in the air
 

hunter05

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2006
7,526
Hokkaido
There's over a decades' worth of games where Nantz very obviously LOOOOOOVES Peyton Manning and has shown a bit of coolness to the Pats. I concede that Nantz is the exception to most of the national broadcasters, though.
He doesn't hate the Patriots. He wants an interesting game to call. The Patriots continually winning is fucking boring to him. The upstart Jags coming into NE and upsetting the Patriots is a far more interesting story than Bill and Brady winning again.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
36,595
Here
There was a play early in the game where I think it was Amendola was held AND interfered with on the same play. Yet no one is commenting on THAT non call.

And that is one of the most obvious PI calls ever. Bouye had two hands on Cooks shoving him away from the route and out of bounds. He wasnt running him out, he was using two hands to direct him there while the ball is in the air
There was actually a third Cooks deep ball that was PI with the defender holdings Cooks’ arm, but they probably withheld it because of PI fatigue. The ball landed right in his breadbasket otherwise.
 
Mar 26, 2014
69
There was actually a third Cooks deep ball that was PI...
Yeah, Romo called out Cooks for the ball going right through where his hands should have been, not noticing that the DB blatantly grabbed his arm and held it down.

The refs let them play and the biggest difference in this game is that Jax committed some really blatant penalties and some of them actually got called.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
53,247
deep inside Guido territory
Amazingly I’m still seeing people saying Montana is still the better QB. Brady has now doubled his SB appearances. Brady is 18 games over .500 in the playoffs which is more than the total number of Montana playoff wins.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
40,825
Amazingly I’m still seeing people saying Montana is still the better QB. Brady has now doubled his SB appearances. Brady is 18 games over .500 in the playoffs which is more than the total number of Montana playoff wins.
I live in Montana country in the Bay Area and that sentiment is pretty common. At this point, its also laughable given just about every statistical measure. That won't stop Montana fans and Patriot haters from arguing that Brady is inferior for whatever twisted logic they choose to put forth so I've stopped discussing him/the Pats with any non-NE fans.

In the end, Brady has five Superbowl rings to Montana's four, seven big game appearances to Joe's four and TB12 is playing for his sixth win/eighth SB in two weeks. They can argue all they want but the 49ers, while an amazing team during Montana's run, weren't as successful as the Patriots under Brady. When you throw in the impact of the salary cap and how the Patriots won despite working with a limitation the early San Francisco teams didn't face, the argument is even more of a joke.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,424
Montana is definitely one of the three best quarterbacks ever whose last name starts with "M"
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
33,049
306, row 14
Yeah, Romo called out Cooks for the ball going right through where his hands should have been, not noticing that the DB blatantly grabbed his arm and held it down.

The refs let them play and the biggest difference in this game is that Jax committed some really blatant penalties and some of them actually got called.
Yeah I don’t get some of the complaints. The refs let them play today. 6 accepted penalties on Jax- false start, delay of game, illegal formation (or shift when they rushed to avoid a possible challenge), helmet-to-helmet on Gronk, and the 2 DPI’s that Cooks drew. They all seemed like straight forward calls. Take out the procedural flags and the personal foul and you’re left with 2 contact/judgement flags. 3 if you include the decliners holding.

The refs kept the flags in their pockets.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
17,338
Pittsburgh, PA
And that is one of the most obvious PI calls ever. Bouye had two hands on Cooks shoving him away from the route and out of bounds. He wasnt running him out, he was using two hands to direct him there while the ball is in the air
I haven't seen a close-up replay of it, but watching it live and the other replays at-distance, it looked like he knocked Cooks out of bounds (legal), but then continued to block him while out of bounds (illegal) and prevent him from re-entering the field (illegal). Is that not what happened? Is there a good view? Crucial play either way.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I haven't seen a close-up replay of it, but watching it live and the other replays at-distance, it looked like he knocked Cooks out of bounds (legal), but then continued to block him while out of bounds (illegal) and prevent him from re-entering the field (illegal). Is that not what happened? Is there a good view? Crucial play either way.
knockingnoutnof bounds isn’t legal. He’s not a gunner. If he did knock him out, it’s illegal contact after 5 yards.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,627
The conspiracy based on the ref congratulating Brady at the end of the game is the best. If there really was a super secret nfl and ref conspiracy to help New England the last thing in the world any ref would do is congratulate him publicly in front of tens of millions of fans.
 

joeflah

lurker
Feb 1, 2015
57
Local announcers, sure. I'm talking about national announcers. They don't have a rooting interest. I don't agree with all the posts about Nantz and Romo wanting the Pats to lose.
So what happens to national announcers who do have a rooting interest? Are they immediately sent to hell? So we never get to notice it? Are they immediately fired because they’re breaking a network rule? They’re human beings so of course some some of them have a rooting interest. To say that they don’t is the epitome of stupidity. Had to say so, it’s true! Sorry.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,275
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
knockingnoutnof bounds isn’t legal. He’s not a gunner. If he did knock him out, it’s illegal contact after 5 yards.
You cannot shove a runner with your hands off the route while the ball is in the air. That is PI. If he shoved him before the ball was thrown, then it is illegal contact

Its all about the hands. If he just ran him out with his body, its a brilliant play. Once he shoved him with his arms, and the ball was en route, it is PI.

Its amazing how many NFL talking heads are too stupid to read the rule book



Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.​
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
15,975
Exactly. There is no allowance in the rule book to allow defenders to shove receivers out of bounds when the ball is in the air, unless the ball is obviously uncatchable.

EDIT: One issue with the first DPI call is that there didn't seem to be that many camera angles. I could honestly see folks arguing that the contact was "minor" therefore not worthy of a flag. Even though the rule book doesn't allow for "minor" contact, sometimes officials do let that slide in the playoffs. But none of the whiners really know what the official saw; I myself thought I saw the defender actually push Cooks, but I'd be curious if there are any other videos capturing that play more decisively.

As for the other calls that I've seen questioned on the interwebs:

1.) The 2nd DPI call that Cooks drew was blatantly obvious. The defender grabbed Cook's shoulder pads and redirected him away from making the catch.

2.) Gilmore may have made contact with the receiver when he deflected the pass on the final 4th down play. But DB's have a right to make a play on the ball as long as they don't go over the receiver's back, and Gilmore was in front of the receiver.
 
Last edited:

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
7,611
New York City
Its amazing how many NFL talking heads are too stupid to read the rule book
I mean, it's shocking to me that you would even need to know the formal rules to understand this. If this wasn't the case, DBs would just push receivers out of bounds every single time on sideline routes.

Continues to amaze me how otherwise at least semi-intelligent talking heads lose all sense of reason when discussing the Patriots.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,962
AZ
One thing that gets lost in ref evaluation of isolated calls is the fact that they watch the receivers running dozens of routes. There's one or two guys watching Cooks every single route. Including the dozens where he doesn't get a target.

It's hard to see receiver action on sideline angles on tv but from what we could see it looked like Cooks was a menace all game. Other than a few crossing and post plays, it seemed like the game plan for Cooks was simple. If they play you tight, run past them, and if they play you loose make a move. The officials watched this, what, three dozen times? They knew when a defender was beat and was using his hands to make up for getting beat and so an advantage was gained. The Jags simply could not contend with Cooks' speed for sixty minutes. The officials saw this all game long. They know what they saw and when it mattered and when it didn't.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,962
AZ
I should add that the Patriots did get a bit lucky on two calls that were questionable to me. First, I think there maybe was holding on Lewis' run at the end of the game. It was close, but a grab on the edge on running plays tends to get called. That was 50/50.

Second, I do not think Jack was ever down by contact on his fumble recovery. Lewis came close with his foot but didn't get him. The officials blew the whistle and ended the play before declaring it a fumble, but he looked like he could have gone a long way and maybe even scored, but because they ended the play the most they could do was give him the ball at the recovery spot.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
15,975
I should add that the Patriots did get a bit lucky on two calls that were questionable to me. First, I think there maybe was holding on Lewis' run at the end of the game. It was close, but a grab on the edge on running plays tends to get called. That was 50/50.

Second, I do not think Jack was ever down by contact on his fumble recovery. Lewis came close with his foot but didn't get him. The officials blew the whistle and ended the play before declaring it a fumble, but he looked like he could have gone a long way and maybe even scored, but because they ended the play the most they could do was give him the ball at the recovery spot.
From the replay of the Lewis fumble, the correct call was made when the official ruled it down. However, it's unclear if there would have been enough evidence to overturn had the official not blown the whistle and allowed Jack to run the ball back.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
49,838
ISecond, I do not think Jack was ever down by contact on his fumble recovery. Lewis came close with his foot but didn't get him. The officials blew the whistle and ended the play before declaring it a fumble, but he looked like he could have gone a long way and maybe even scored, but because they ended the play the most they could do was give him the ball at the recovery spot.
This has been posted a number of times. He does NOT need to be touched after gaining full possession. That is not the rule.

 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,962
AZ
From the replay of the Lewis fumble, the correct call was made when the official ruled it down. However, it's unclear if there would have been enough evidence to overturn had the official not blown the whistle and allowed Jack to run the ball back.
What are you seeing to say it's correct? I rewatched and they showed about 10 replays -- focused on the fumble not down by contact. There's one angle that looks like Lewis' foot touches his butt but on one quick angle they show you see it misses by at least a foot. Just curious what you saw -- did someone else get him?

I'm not even sure it was called down by contact on the field. I think the play might have been whistled down by the side Judge who didn't know Lewis lost the ball and then the other official said it was a fumble.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
10,330
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
On the Lewis fumble, I think the refs could have easily called him down by contact and then had a tough time overturning that on replay if there was some home cooking. It was a very tough play to judge live.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,964
What are you seeing to say it's correct? I rewatched and they showed about 10 replays -- focused on the fumble not down by contact. There's one angle that looks like Lewis' foot touches his butt but on one quick angle they show you see it misses by at least a foot. Just curious what you saw -- did someone else get him?

I'm not even sure it was called down by contact on the field. I think the play might have been whistled down by the side Judge who didn't know Lewis lost the ball and then the other official said it was a fumble.
I thought they blew the play dead and the official was signaling that LEWIS was down by contact. I thought that was the initial call. And then when they talked it over, they were ruling that no, it turns out that Jack had the ball and it was a fumble. I could totally be wrong but that's what I thought they were saying, which is why the whistle blew.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
3,846
In the simulacrum
I was inappropriately confident that the Pats would win yesterday, and now that it is over I am way more relieved than I anticipated being. Maybe it is because the Steelers are such a bunch of loudmouth clowns, but I did not really appreciate how insufferable that Jacksonville group was until about the middle of the second quarter (somewhere around Gronk's exit I guess).

Good riddance to them.

I vote against another joint practice as well.

“The bitch that got away”

View attachment 19384

Also, young James Brown?
I like this photo. I'd take another serving.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
10,330
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
What are you seeing to say it's correct? I rewatched and they showed about 10 replays -- focused on the fumble not down by contact. There's one angle that looks like Lewis' foot touches his butt but on one quick angle they show you see it misses by at least a foot. Just curious what you saw -- did someone else get him?

I'm not even sure it was called down by contact on the field. I think the play might have been whistled down by the side Judge who didn't know Lewis lost the ball and then the other official said it was a fumble.
Contact that occurs as the defender begins to establish control of the ball is valid. It doesn't need to happen after Jack had fully gained control of the football for him to be down by contact. It was the right call.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
49,838
I thought they blew the play dead and the official was signaling that LEWIS was down by contact. I thought that was the initial call. And then when they talked it over, they were ruling that no, it turns out that Jack had the ball and it was a fumble. I could totally be wrong but that's what I thought they were saying, which is why the whistle blew.
It's almost like the refs actually know what they're doing. Until you look at twitter.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,376
An underrated side benefit of these comebacks is how, for many of the people rooting against New England, the looming specter of a possible (probable) Brady 4th quarter comeback just sucks the joy out of games where the Patriots find themselves getting beat. Talking to a few non-Pats fans today, to a person they all admitted that they couldn't take much enjoyment out of the first half of yesterday's game because they just knew it wouldn't hold up.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,962
AZ
It's actually not weird. It happens on catches where there's a bobble all the time. Well, not all the time, but a lot.
Yeah, I guess I can see that. But you can draw up imaginary plays where it would look stupid and where you'd prefer that you need possession -- to be a runner -- to be tackled or down. But, the rule is the rule.

The rule being discussed in the blog cited above, by the way, is the wrong rule -- the rule that says touching a ball touching a player on the ground is down by contact is not in play here. That applies when a player goes down without contact. If you touch the ball while it is touching the player -- even if you are not down and the ball is the only thing you touch. This could have come into play in the Malcolm Mitchell play that Aikman mentioned in the Super Bowl where he went down without contact. He got the ball back so it didn't matter but he would have been down anyway.

Edit: just out of curiosity, what is the ruling if Jack is back on his feet by the time he regains possession and becomes a runner? So, strip, starts to grab the ball while still in contact with the runner, touches the ground as he's securing the ball, but still bobbling and gets to his feet and secures the ball? Still down by contact?
 
Last edited:

amchin

Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
9
NYC
He doesn't hate the Patriots. He wants an interesting game to call. The Patriots continually winning is fucking boring to him. The upstart Jags coming into NE and upsetting the Patriots is a far more interesting story than Bill and Brady winning again.
iirc, Nantz and Petyon share an agent, which may drive his underwhelming enthusiasm for all things Pats...or his failing/refusal to delve into Peyton and HGH-gate at all during broadcasts
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,424
Hingham, MA
As I said last night - this is a league that has taken away two first round picks, as well as our QB for a quarter of a season. The idea that they now favor the Pats is ludicrisp.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
29,478
to be fair Stephen A Smith and the other guy are blasting Kellerman. the other guy gave an even-keeled analysis saying we adjusted and JAX didn't.

but overall, the Pats are the political topic of sports. can't have a rational conversation about them between lines.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,362
Needham, MA
I don't understand how anyone who honestly believes the NFL is fixing games for the Pats would continue to spend any time watching football. Why would you want to watch a league that was actively favoring one team over the others?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
36,595
Here
Oh. Weird rule, but ok.
If it wasn’t the rule, players could intentionally “bobble” the ball when they hit the ground and then get up and run. It’s similar to the tag-up rules in baseball where a runner can tag up the moment it hits a fielder’s glove.
 

TrotWaddles

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2004
1,391
San Antonio, TX
An underrated side benefit of these comebacks is how, for many of the people rooting against New England, the looming specter of a possible (probable) Brady 4th quarter comeback just sucks the joy out of games where the Patriots find themselves getting beat. Talking to a few non-Pats fans today, to a person they all admitted that they couldn't take much enjoyment out of the first half of yesterday's game because they just knew it wouldn't hold up.
This is incredibly true! At the end of the first half, my phone was remarkably silent despite having had a group text where much shit was talked pregame. I even sent out a text in the 4th quarter "Cat got your tongue?" No takers. After the game, I wanted to be classy so I send a last text to the group "The NFL can have their league back when BB and TB12 are goddamned good and ready."

We are living in strange and remarkable times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.