Cookiemonster Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Also, Edelman hit Fitz late out of bounds on one run - no call. You can bet if it was Brady it would have been 15. I realize it is a mute point, but right after the play, we see Belicheat running up to the side judge flailing around like an idiot, and clearly picked up on the ref's mic, that "67 is holding, 67 is holding". I believe it was the very next play, or the one right after, and yep, you guessed it we get flagged by the same ref. that Belicheat was just brow beating on the sidelines, for holding, and I believe he called # 67 for it. Now, it really doesn't matter to me whether 67 actually was hodling or not, the point is , he has the referee's ears, and that is just plain BS. Their coaches are in the ref's ears from play one, it is so blatant that they don't hide it either.We have to field a team not only good enough to beat the opponenets every week, but the officials as well, and that is a tall order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) Free shavers that D-bag Kraft has been handing out to the zebras are sure paying big dividends. Edited January 2, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I realize it is a mute point, but right after the play, we see Belicheat running up to the side judge flailing around like an idiot, and clearly picked up on the ref's mic, that "67 is holding, 67 is holding". I believe it was the very next play, or the one right after, and yep, you guessed it we get flagged by the same ref. that Belicheat was just brow beating on the sidelines, for holding, and I believe he called # 67 for it. Now, it really doesn't matter to me whether 67 actually was hodling or not, the point is , he has the referee's ears, and that is just plain BS. Their coaches are in the ref's ears from play one, it is so blatant that they don't hide it either.We have to field a team not only good enough to beat the opponenets every week, but the officials as well, and that is a tall order. There were two holding calls against Andy and both were replayed. one was justified and the other was not even close. For those that say the brady laws do not affect the outcome of these matchups, I think it becomes more than field position. It can change the momentum of a game. We got beat by the better team but not on a level playing field. again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 You can get called now for deflecting a Brady pass.....wat a joke this guy and the rules that apply to him and a select few others really is. Don't forget the almost touching Brady penalty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smward8 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Don't forget the almost touching Brady penalty... That is hilarious!! And, sadly, true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NyQuil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Drayton Florence showing what he feels happened: Linky Edited January 4, 2012 by NyQuil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Biggest BS call of the year. He was running after the interceptor - he was fair game, plus he wasn't "driven" into the ground. +1 A huge joke of a call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteCat Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Drayton Florence showing what he feels happened: Linky And you know what?- that was a late hit, although not a hard one, after the whistle, from behind (a defenseless player?), right in front of the officials. Should it have been called? Of course not, it's football. Exactly why the "hit" on tinkerbell should'nt have been called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 49-21, 49 straight unanswered points, and all because of one penalty? No. Obviously you are correct, but they need to vent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) What a joke of a call. Brady takes a dive like a soccer player and the ref says he got "drilled" to the ground. Brady should just have his own whole rulebook for refs to refer to when they're officiating Pats* games. Yeah even with all of the "Brady" rules, I still couldn't believe that call... 1) Florence "bumped" him legally from the side DURING THE RETURN 2) Brady is no longer a "QB" when pursuing a return 3) Florence was standing upright the whole time, and Brady basically flopped to the ground. There was nothing that could be mistaken for "driving the QB into the ground", even by the wildest imagination. If the ref really felt compelled to call something, call unsportsmanlike conduct (which it wasn't). 4) It was just a sorry excuse for a "call", and the ref's should be ashamed of themselves... 5) Clearly the protection for 1 specific player (Brady), is different than it is for the rest of the league...Which is simply ridiculous...That call would not have been made against any other QB. Edited January 4, 2012 by Turbosrrgood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Obviously you are correct, but they need to vent I know, but let's be smart and vent in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I know, but let's be smart and vent in the right direction. This didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game, but it was still a BS call. Nothing wrong with talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game, but it was still a BS call. Nothing wrong with talking about it. It was being talked about like it was the reason we lost the game, and we both know that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It was being talked about like it was the reason we lost the game, and we both know that is not the case. Well I'll agree with you there, I definitely don't think that's why we lost...IMO, it was just annoying to see Brady get ridiculously preferential treatment... If we want to look at reasons for losing, there are a few. 1) SJ getting himself benched. And subsequently Gailey keeping him out for the rest of the game 1a) I am assuming the Bills WANTED to lose for draft positioning, and possible leverage in contract negotiations with SJ. Personally I think the leverage aspect backfired, as it was clear how badly the team needs him. 2) The usual collapse of our inexperienced and poorly coached defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Well I'll agree with you there, I definitely don't think that's why we lost...IMO, it was just annoying to see Brady get ridiculously preferential treatment... If we want to look at reasons for losing, there are a few. 1) SJ getting himself benched. And subsequently Gailey keeping him out for the rest of the game 1a) I am assuming the Bills WANTED to lose for draft positioning, and possible leverage in contract negotiations with SJ. Personally I think the leverage aspect backfired, as it was clear how badly the team needs him. 2) The usual collapse of our inexperienced and poorly coached defense. I think Brady is defined as "preferential treatment." How many guys have 2 rules implemented because of what happens in games? I'm really surprised the Giants weren't flagged more than they were when they beat the Patiots in the Super Bowl by putting a beating on Brady. It sure was nice to watch, though. Do you really think SJ planned on getting benched? He said afterwards that he didn't think a penalty would or should be called. Collapse? I call it a disintegration of monumental proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I think Brady is defined as "preferential treatment." How many guys have 2 rules implemented because of what happens in games? I'm really surprised the Giants weren't flagged more than they were when they beat the Patiots in the Super Bowl by putting a beating on Brady. It sure was nice to watch, though. Do you really think SJ planned on getting benched? He said afterwards that he didn't think a penalty would or should be called. Collapse? I call it a disintegration of monumental proportions. No I definitely don't think SJ wanted to get benched, but his dumb actions led to it anyway... But clearly the Bills weren't at all concerned with losing the game by benching him... If the Bills wanted to win they would have let him play at least the second half. I think they were just fine with sealing their fate by leaving him out, and improving their draft position. Edited January 4, 2012 by Turbosrrgood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 brady* admits he got the call, but it's the only time all season seriously, he means it I know, it’s funny, because people say that. I don’t get any calls.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 No I definitely don't think SJ wanted to get benched, but his dumb actions led to it anyway... But clearly the Bills weren't at all concerned with losing the game by benching him... If the Bills wanted to win they would have let him play at least the second half. I think they were just fine with sealing their fate by leaving him out, and improving their draft position. I believe Gailey wanted to send him a message, but it aslo gave us a good opportunity to see what we have without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I believe Gailey wanted to send him a message, but it aslo gave us a good opportunity to see what we have without him. Yeah, now we know...Nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brand J Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) OK, so the score could have been 49-28. Still a loss. Yes, because the events of the game would've unfolded EXACTLY as they did before, leading to a 49-28 score. C'mon man, you can't be serious. I'm pretty sure the Bills would've lost, but NO ONE knows what would've happened if the Bills had scored on that drive. At that point in the game, the score was BUF 21 NE 14, it would be a different game if the score became BUF 28 NE 14. What would the final score be? I don't know and YOU don't know. No one knows... Unless they claim to be clairvoyant. Edited January 4, 2012 by JayBaller10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts