PDaDdy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 So, you are suggesting conspiracy then ........... Make up your mind will you. I'm not sure why you are bent on trying to put labels on what people see. Just agree that you see it. Several individuals acting on their own that produce a similar result does not a conspiracy make. Do I think people get together in a room and say lets give the Pats preferential treatment? NO! Maybe you do which is why you keep calling it a conspiracy. How about you answer a question of mine or of one of the other posters questions you are dodging Pat's Fanboy. Do YOU think the rules of intentional grounding and roughing the passer were officiated equally on both sides???? NOTE I said equally on both sides. I am not asking you to comment on whether the Ravens should have been called or not. I am asking if the Patriots went uncalled on their infractions. We'll see what kind of character you have by the answers you give OR choose to avoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 If you are suggesting that good teams maybe get the benefit of the doubt on some calls that bad teams don't get then yeah I agree. I mean if Manning to Wayne hook up and it's close the ref might inch them over the mark knowing that they are who they are. J Russell to whoever Raider WR happens to catch one his tosses might not get the same benefit. Ditto why the Colts and PAts OL don't seem to get called for holding as much as say the Bills OL But, to suggest that the league gives the Pats preferential treatment to all other 31 NFL teams is monumentally asinine. Come on Johnny. Terry McAulay's words are quoted for you to read. Assuming you saw the play in question...would you term that 'hit' forceful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 yawn.... like they care. They are probably too busy polishing their Super Bowl rings. Anyway, ever noticed how good teams tend to get the breaks and poor teams dont? It's a bit of yin yang IMO. Ever notice how teams that get the breaks tend to be good and the teams that don't tend to be bad? To a somewhat lesser extent it does kind of work the other way as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 wrong! you would term that 'hit' forcible? link I believe that it is unwise for any defender to hit any NFL QB below the waist (or on the helmet) in today's NFL else risk a 15 yard penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I believe that it is unwise for any defender to hit any NFL QB below the waist (or on the helmet) in today's NFL else risk a 15 yard penalty. No Johnny. You haven't answered the question. You said that the call was made correctly. Don't backpeddle now. Please admit to us that you were wrong and you adore the pats*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabden Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 There are always bad spots, mainly because the officials are human and down at field level which gives them the worst view possible. Couple that with the fact that most officials seems to be somewhere between 100 and 1000 years old and that's a recipe for bad calls. And it will always be that way unless they go to some automated system to spot the ball after each play. Bad spots happen, but not with the frequency of beneficial spots the Pats get at home. "Just give it to them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm not sure why you are bent on trying to put labels on what people see. Just agree that you see it. Several individuals acting on their own that produce a similar result does not a conspiracy make. Do I think people get together in a room and say lets give the Pats preferential treatment? NO! Maybe you do which is why you keep calling it a conspiracy. I believe we are saying the same thing but perhaps are referencing different defn of conspiracy. What I am saying is that I don't believe people get together and conspire to benefit (or cause hurt) to any NFL team. Pats included. How about you answer a question of mine or of one of the other posters questions you are dodging Pat's Fanboy. Do YOU think the rules of intentional grounding and roughing the passer were officiated equally on both sides???? NOTE I said equally on both sides. I am not asking you to comment on whether the Ravens should have been called or not. I am asking if the Patriots went uncalled on their infractions. We'll see what kind of character you have by the answers you give OR choose to avoid From my TV vantage point I didn't see any blatantly wrong calls in the game beyond the norm. I wasn't clear on the fake FG ruling and would have appreciated a better explanation of the review I suppose at the time but have since learned that the call was made properly (pas was completed and that no irrefutable evidence was seen by the refs to overturn the forward progress on the play. Truthfully, I'm not a fan of the helmet and below the waist rules but understand why they have them in place. Likewise, if I'm a player, I also would expect to be penalized if I even come close to laying a hurt on a QB in today's NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Bad spots happen, but not with the frequency of beneficial spots the Pats get at home. "Just give it to them." Do have stats to substantiate this claim or are you just pulling it out of your backside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I didn't answer it because I figured the point was moot. The RTP calls were called correctly as per the rules. You hit a QB in the helmet it's 15. You hit a QB below the waist, it's 15. If you can read, I was talking not about the RTP calls, but the PI on Carr and the 15 yarder for Lord knows what on Jim Harbaugh immediately after that--20 yards of garbage penalties on that drive. Penalties that Pats* opponents seem to be the only ones to ever get (especially the one on the coach, which even the announcers mentioned never really seeing)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 If you can read, I was talking not about the RTP calls, but the PI on Carr and the 15 yarder for Lord knows what on Jim Harbaugh immediately after that--20 yards of garbage penalties on that drive. Penalties that Pats* opponents seem to be the only ones to ever get (especially the one on the coach, which even the announcers mentioned never really seeing)...... I wasn't there to gauge the seriousness of what Harbaugh said to the ref but if you heard the exchange in question then I draw back my point. As for the PI call on Carr ..... I think it could have gone either way and been the correct call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddgurley Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Be specific judman. Is there a particular incident you are referring to? ask ray lewis. I am guessing he is talking about the gay phantom roughing the passer calls on queer boy tom brady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I don't think there needs to be a conspiracy for the league to favor the Pats. There isn't a conspiracy required in the NBA to favor star players but there are clear economic incentives to do so. It's also no secret that Kraft is one of the preferred owners in the league. Also now even ESPN and CBS have direct financial interests tied in with the success of the Patriots and they themselves have enormous contracts with the NFL. That statement defies logic. Here's a question; why in the most dominating season in NFL history, did the refs/league/whoever not let their favorite team win the SB against the Giants? All it took was a single flag for holding (it would have hardly have been a stretch). Yet they "just let them play" and that was the game. They denied all that glory---how do you explain this? Why would they be getting all these nickle and dime calls but not the big one? And how do you explain the Steelers......? Big Ben's march through the playoffs for his first SB win were loaded with blatantly favorable calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That statement defies logic. Here's a question; why in the most dominating season in NFL history, did the refs/league/whoever not let their favorite team win the SB against the Giants? All it took was a single flag for holding (it would have hardly have been a stretch). Yet they "just let them play" and that was the game. They denied all that glory---how do you explain this? Why would they be getting all these nickle and dime calls but not the big one? And how do you explain the Steelers......? Big Ben's march through the playoffs for his first SB win were loaded with blatantly favorable calls. I'm not sure what you're even responding to in my post. So the fact that NE didn't get favorable calls in the Super Bowl against a team from NYC is proof that the league doesn't favor the Pats? Also nothing in my post says that other teams don't also get favorable treatment. The Steelers are certainly one of them. In fact most big markets with wealthy ownership get a lot of breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm not sure what you're even responding to in my post. So the fact that NE didn't get favorable calls in the Super Bowl against a team from NYC is proof that the league doesn't favor the Pats? Also nothing in my post says that other teams don't also get favorable treatment. The Steelers are certainly one of them. In fact most big markets with wealthy ownership get a lot of breaks. Then perhaps you should amend your statement to say that "the league favors the pats----excpet when playing the following teams:steelers, jets, giants, dallas, chicago, san diego and any other big markets with wealthy ownership." It's clear, despite evidence to the contrary, that you don't consider Ralph one of the wealthiest owners in the league. And are you really going to stand by your claim that the league's "financial interests [are] tied in with the success of the patriots"? So, seeing as the pats didn't even make the playoffs last year, the league must have been teetering on bancruptcy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I believe we are saying the same thing but perhaps are referencing different defn of conspiracy. What I am saying is that I don't believe people get together and conspire to benefit (or cause hurt) to any NFL team. Pats included. From my TV vantage point I didn't see any blatantly wrong calls in the game beyond the norm. I wasn't clear on the fake FG ruling and would have appreciated a better explanation of the review I suppose at the time but have since learned that the call was made properly (pas was completed and that no irrefutable evidence was seen by the refs to overturn the forward progress on the play. Truthfully, I'm not a fan of the helmet and below the waist rules but understand why they have them in place. Likewise, if I'm a player, I also would expect to be penalized if I even come close to laying a hurt on a QB in today's NFL. The fake punt was also "questionable" but I'm talking about the late hit on Flacco. The one were he got rid of the ball. The defender took 2 more steps and launched into him. This was the play where their offensive lineman was hurt in the tumble and carted off the field. Even Trent Dilfer referenced this play on ESPN as being a double standard regarding Tom Brady and other QBs. All in the same game. I'm also talking about Brady being in the grasp, between the tackles and he throws the ball into an open area on the field with LITTERALLY no WR in a 10 - 15 radius of where the ball landed...no call. Fake punt ruling was weak but those are really the issues I'm talking about. Ravens get called for roughing the passer and intentional grounding and the Pats, as usual, get a pass!!! I was remaining civil but PLEASE!!!!!! From my TV vantage point I didn't see any blatantly wrong calls in the game beyond the norm. Come on fan boy. The national media is finally speaking out on it now and still you saw no blatantly wrong calls? I didn't even want to discuss the bad calls made ON the Ravens but I'll mention it now. A guys gets pushed to the ground, brushes the outside leg of Tom Brady who is unfazed and unmoved and it's roughing the passer? Haloti Ngata breaths on Tommy Boys helmet as he passes bye Tommy again unfazed and unmoved and another roughing the passer? FOR SHAME SIR!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then perhaps you should amend your statement to say that "the league favors the pats----excpet when playing the following teams:steelers, jets, giants, dallas, chicago, san diego and any other big markets with wealthy ownership." It's clear, despite evidence to the contrary, that you don't consider Ralph one of the wealthiest owners in the league. And are you really going to stand by your claim that the league's "financial interests [are] tied in with the success of the patriots"? So, seeing as the pats didn't even make the playoffs last year, the league must have been teetering on bancruptcy, right? You are assuming they always do things a certain way, when people are saying preferential treatment. Also, the calls yesterday bordered on insane, as did the 2007 Ravens game. I watched both of them and in both games the calls were very circumspect and extremely preferential. Lastly, they couldn't blatantly cheat in the Giants SB game when the whole world was looking for cheating. They looked pretty ordinary on offense for a change... isn't that just a coincidence huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then perhaps you should amend your statement to say that "the league favors the pats----excpet when playing the following teams:steelers, jets, giants, dallas, chicago, san diego and any other big markets with wealthy ownership." It's clear, despite evidence to the contrary, that you don't consider Ralph one of the wealthiest owners in the league. And are you really going to stand by your claim that the league's "financial interests [are] tied in with the success of the patriots"? So, seeing as the pats didn't even make the playoffs last year, the league must have been teetering on bancruptcy, right? you're funny. It's all either black or white with you. your logic is basically this: "If the league favors the Pats why don't they let win all the games!?" - I'm not saying the league fixes games. "If the league makes more money with a successful Pats franchise, why didn't the league go broke without the Pats in the Playoffs!?" - the league is profitable regardless, they make more money when big market franchises with marketable stars are successful also, San Diego is neither a huge market nor does it have strong ownership. Their stadium is a wreck and are yearly rumored to be moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That statement defies logic. Here's a question; why in the most dominating season in NFL history, did the refs/league/whoever not let their favorite team win the SB against the Giants? All it took was a single flag for holding (it would have hardly have been a stretch). Yet they "just let them play" and that was the game. They denied all that glory---how do you explain this? Why would they be getting all these nickle and dime calls but not the big one? And how do you explain the Steelers......? Big Ben's march through the playoffs for his first SB win were loaded with blatantly favorable calls. No logic being defied here. Recall that this Super Bowl was played under the shadow of the Pats* cheating scandal re-breaking two days earlier. If (and it's just an "if"--I'm not accusing anyone) there was a deal in place for one or more refs to do the usual number on the Pats* opponents don't you think such a breaking scandal might give them second thoughts? I certainly do. Not saying there is a conspiracy, but I am saying that based on what I've seen in numerous games, yesterday's being only the most recent is a series of data points, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we find out years from now that someone in the Pats* organization has been paying officials, especially considering the things we know they've done when it comes to cheating (Spygate, HGH use among their players (many of whom tend to be of the "aging vet" variety)) and the things others suspect them of doing without proof as of yet (head sets on the fritz, bad spots, miked linemen, etc--again, see that NYT article from 2007 on the suspicions of others in the League on them)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That statement defies logic. Here's a question; why in the most dominating season in NFL history, did the refs/league/whoever not let their favorite team win the SB against the Giants? All it took was a single flag for holding (it would have hardly have been a stretch). Yet they "just let them play" and that was the game. They denied all that glory---how do you explain this? Why would they be getting all these nickle and dime calls but not the big one? And how do you explain the Steelers......? Big Ben's march through the playoffs for his first SB win were loaded with blatantly favorable calls. So your argument is that since they don't do it 100% of the time they must not do it at all? Is that what I am hearing? The Giants flat out WHOOPED the Pats. It would have taken some INCREDIBLY blatant favorable calls to stem that tide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 It hurts the creditability of the league to have the Pats* getting these roughing the Brady calls. You have a team that got caught blatantly cheating for a number of years you issue a bunch of fines and and take away a draft choice and than destroy the evidence because quote "It didn't shed any new light"? Like Joey Porter said "If it wasn't helping them why did they keep doing it? Hell I wouldn't waste my time doing something if it wasn't helping me". Come on the NFL clearly favors the Pats* these call on anyone who gets near Brady are just the latest embodiment of what us Bills fans have known for a while. Also how come no one is questioning the fact that Brady a guy who came into the league throwing 50-60 yards down field can now throw 90 yards. Is anyone else think Brady might be taking Steroids or HGH (Not saying he is but its not an unreasonable question to wounder why his arm has improved so much). Now I am not going to say the NFL rigs games but they do lend a helping hand to the bigger more connected teams (Pats* Giants and Steelers) they don't tell the refs what to do but I am sure the NFL front office has told the refs to make sure no one is touching Brady in the Knees or Head. IT pisses me off that no one in the national media ever calls the Pats* or the league on this. The Pats* are a fraudulent dynasty and history already has shown it. I hope that more comes out on Belicheat and who he really is. There is my angry rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts