Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in Chad Johnson doing commercials for Fathead wall posters?
Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in Chad Johnson doing commercials for Fathead wall posters?
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
Although his head is not literally as big as Rex Grossman's. That dude's melon is huge.Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in Chad Johnson doing commercials for Fathead wall posters?
Last edited by Dom Heffner; 01-16-2006 at 02:43 AM.
If you're watchin' a parade, make sure you stand in one spot, don't follow it, it never changes. And if the parade is boring, run in the opposite direction, you will fast-foward the parade. --Mitch Hedberg
My NFL alliegences (to my Bucs) are well documented. I'm by no means a Steelers apologist or Steelers fan. I actually root for Dungy because I think he's a good cat that just as a tough time motivating teams and coaching his teams up in the playoffs.Originally Posted by Danny Serafini
But, as an impartial fan (with no money on the outcome) watching todays games, the overwhelming thought in my mind was: The Steelers, for whatever reason, are getting legitimately screwed by the officiating team. I mean, I've watched games before and thought the officiating was bad, and I joke about the league paying extra attention to teams like Chicago, Washington and Boston because the media markets are so much bigger -- but today was the first time I've ever been tempted to come to the conclusion that the refs were throwing the game one direction on orders of the league. It's a scary thought -- way too "Conspiracy nut" for my tastes.
You're right: calls go both ways in a football game. But, when you look objectively at the way the replay on the of the Polamalu, there is simply no way a sane human being could see any visual evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. When an official spends as much time as that one did reviewing the play, the only conclusion I can come to is that they were looking for some reason to overturn the INT and give Indy another shot at getting back into the game. It went beyond being a horrible call and into the realm of purposefully attempting to overturn the outcome of a play -- which is not what replay is at all designed to do.
As for the "False Start" by Faneca. If the Refs saw a false start, then by all means they should flag the false start. I agree, Faneca could've been flagged on that play. But, the refs did not see Faneca flinch. Nobody threw a flag up, nobody indicated that an offensive linemen had broken out of his stance. What did happen, however, were Colts players charging across the line at the Steelers. If the refs did not see a false start, then this by definition has to be an encroachment foul or a nuetral zone violation. You can't just wipe off a play (on 4th down) like that, it's a penalty on one side or the other.
Incidentally, I agree completely with Steel on this point: there should be something done about the gyrating that goes on with Manning, Brady, and other quarterbacks who adjust their plays at the line of scrimmage. Once the linemen drop into a 3 point stance, I was under the assumption they weren't allowed to move a muscle, yet every week I see Colts linemen and Patriots linemen moving around, turning around to hear their quarterbacks, etc. That should be a false start every time. I'd be in favor of a rule change that forbids offensive linemen to move at all once they've established position in their stances, and forbids the quarterback to move (except to recieve the snap of the ball) once he establishes position (two feet down) under center for the snap or behind center for the shotgun.
It was bad...even the announcers were totally speechless and unable to say anything other than it was a horrible no-call. Remember, at this point in the game, Pittsburgh was really looking to put Indy away, and this non-call saved the Colts about 50 yards of field position. Antwaan Randel-El was basically tackled while running his route, with no call made.I honestly don't recall the pass interference play, but really it's not something to get too worked up about since it's purely a judgement call. It's not a black and white rule, so what are you going to do? PI is a lot like holding, it happens a lot more often than it's called, and sometimes you get away with it. There were plays that went both ways against both teams in both games today, that's just the way it goes with that.
I am looking at this objectively, and what I see doesn't add up. These aren't fan goggles -- these are NFL fan goggles that saw the "darling" team of the league catch every break possible today at the hands of the officiating crew, and at a certain point things stop being coincidences.It certainly wasn't the best officiated game I've ever seen, or anywhere close. But to suggest there was some sort of anti-Steeler bias in the officiating today is just silly. Time to take off the fan goggles and look at things objectively.
23 Years and Counting...
1. I agree-the referees called a terrible game and appeared to ignore the rules on at least two occasions, the no-call on the either Fancea moved or the Colts were offsides, and the Polamalu interception.
2. I agree-how does any QB get away with overruling his coach, as Manning did by sending the punting unit off the field?
3. Manning did have "happy feet", but the Steelers defense had a lot to do with making his feet happy. Manning had limited pass protection the entire game.
4. I thought Mannin made a very poor decision on third and 2 from the Steelers 28 on the final play before the Vanderjagt field goal miss. I can understand taking a shot at the endzone and a TD on second and 2, but on third and 2 I believe Manning should have tried to pick up the first down rather than go for a TD again. With a first down he could have run off a couple of more plays and perhaps at least have then been in position for a shorter field goal try.
5. I'm not a Broncos fan, but I hope they whip the Steelers.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Dungy said after the game that he had told Manning to go for it through his headset. Whether he was telling the truth or simply trying to save face is impossible to know, but there you go.2. I agree-how does any QB get away with overruling his coach, as Manning did by sending the punting unit off the field?
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
"The ball was not fumbled because the carrier was in forward motion."-head referee of the Browns/Broncos game in 1988 or 1989.Admittedly, the Polamalu INT was the single worst call I've ever seen on a review.
less than 5 minutes left, Elway handed off to his RB, the RB made it to the line of scrimage, Michael Dean Perry basically ripped the ball out of the dude's hand and started running, to be tackled about 5 yards later. flag is thrown, officials confer, and come up with the peace of crap i quoted from the ref. the Broncos get the ball back, and proceed to score , taking the lead and winning the game.
Browns miss the playoffs as a result of the loss, the NFL profusely apologizes with utmost sincerity to Cleveland two weeks later, citing that it might be the worst call in league history.
and to top it off, that's my first football memory.
the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop
yes, this really is how we make our living.
Dude, you didn't disappoint. I knew when I saw Alexander looking dazed and confused this was coming. Of course, that means I had time to think about the retort. Franchise QB who runs a no-huddle with accurate passing = running back not named Jim Brown in effect on team? I think not :Originally Posted by SteelSD
BTW, the wide right struck a mighty blow to the possibility of karma. If karma were true, certainly that baby would have split the uprights, the Bolts (as in from the playoffs yet again, not confused on who was playing) would have won in OT, and we would have seen the hypocrisy of the Steelers fans/apologists of a week ago as the whining about The Call and The Fumble began. It just isn't fair.
Last edited by traderumor; 01-16-2006 at 08:49 AM.
Can't win with 'em
Can't win without 'em
Of course, I did see some posts insinuating that the fix was on. And thinking that the Kimo hit was intentional was railed as irrational
Can't win with 'em
Can't win without 'em
That's true. The Steelers got some breaks, but the Colts got a few as well so I guess it wasn't one-sided.Originally Posted by SteelSD
Really? Ask Tarik Glenn about that, he got flagged for a false start on Pittsburgh's 1 with a move just as subtle as Faneca's. The Colts got nailed for 3 false starts - on their own field - so their line obviously wasn't given free reign.And I fail to see how anyone can grump about a slight "flinch" made by Faneca when the entire Colts offensive line is allowed to move freely- even after being in the "set" position.
The refs screwed up by not making any call, agreed. But the call should've gone against Pittsburgh. I can't see why any Steeler fans are complaining, it's like complaining about your bank screwing up because they added $20 to your account. The Steelers are the ones who got away with one here, not the Colts. It's merely sour grapes about not getting 5 free yards they didn't deserve in the first place.Could a false start been called on Faneca? Yep. But if it wasn't, there was absolutely zero room for the officals to give the Colts a "do over" even if they didn't touch a Steelers player because the Colts 'en masse intrusion into the neutral zone drew the Steelers LG or LT up from the "set" position. There was no way that a call couldn't be made there. By rule, if they didn't call Faneca for a False Start, they couldn't do what they did. Simply couldn't do it.
So is the strike zone, and we see how uniformly that rule is enforced. The reality is that it's a judgement call in the eye of the official. That's why it can't be reviewed, one man's pass interference is another man's incidental contact. It may be black and white on paper, but in real life it's a thousand shades of gray.It (pass interference) is a black and white rule.
I really don't remember the play, enough people have said that he was getting hung all over, so I'll take everyone's word on it. I also tend to not pay much attention to plays like that whenever Randle-El is involved because I don't think I've ever seen him not get up crying, throwing his hands in the air and making that flag throwing motion whenever it's an incompletion. I've seen his act so many times I just block it out, so the play didn't resonate with me at all. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the refs did in the back of their mind, too. I'm not saying it's right, but it is a call made based on judgement and perception, and it's human nature to not take a person seriously when he complains about every little thing. You cry wolf too many times...When the defender is hanging onto the receiver like a Mr. T starter set before the ball arrives (particularly as badly as that play), you have to make the call. You're obligated to because you're an NFL official and you've promised to enforce the rules of the game. But then, you don't remember it so I'm sure you're a little bit foggy on the severity of the infraction.
Your last two paragraphs are a contradiction. Complaining about a terrible call is one thing. Accusing an official of intentionally trying to give the ball to one team in some great league-wide conspiracy is only objective if you're looking at it through black and gold colored fan goggles. Officials are human. They simply make mistakes, sometimes more than others like yesterday.Official took about 3 minutes for a review that anyone with a brain could have completed in 10 seconds and took plenty of that time in conference with- at minimum- the replay booth looking for a way to give the Colts back the ball after the ruling on the field was "Interception".
That's as objective as it gets.
Come on, don't you know league-wide fixes are commonplace! The '85 Bears were really a 6-10 team, but The Fridge was such a great media personality the league made sure he'd go to a Super Bowl.Originally Posted by traderumor
That's not near enough evidence to try and claim conspiracy theory. There are plenty of reviews that drag out a seemingly ridiculous amount of time. Doesn't mean the refs are trying to throw a game.Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
It's not a penalty on the defense until one of the following occurs: a defender makes contact with an offensive player, the ball is snapped while a defender is in the neutral zone, or the offense starts jumping as a result of the defense jumping in. None of those occurred. The play (or preplay I guess) was a garble, and the refs stopped things before they got even more confused. Doesn't make the refs right, just saying the Colts hadn't actually committed a penalty at the time the refs stepped in.As for the "False Start" by Faneca. If the Refs saw a false start, then by all means they should flag the false start. I agree, Faneca could've been flagged on that play. But, the refs did not see Faneca flinch. Nobody threw a flag up, nobody indicated that an offensive linemen had broken out of his stance. What did happen, however, were Colts players charging across the line at the Steelers. If the refs did not see a false start, then this by definition has to be an encroachment foul or a nuetral zone violation. You can't just wipe off a play (on 4th down) like that, it's a penalty on one side or the other.
Just heard an interesting interview by Mark Manske (sp?) on the Tony Kornheiser show. He compared the Polamalu INT to the Tom Brady "tuck rule" ruling in that when looking at the play everything about the call looks wrong, but when you actually read the rules to the letter the call was correct. When a receiver catches a ball, goes down to the ground untouched and gets back up, he has to retain possession of the ball the entire time he's down. When Polamalu started to get up, he knocked the ball out of his hand while his right knee was down. Since his knee was down he was technically still on the ground when he lost possession, therefore it's no catch. Totally funky the way everything worked out on that play, but it turned out the ref actually got it right on review according to the rules. Curious what the conspiracy theorists have to say on this one.
yep. Much like the TD overturned in the Jags game, the rules were the culprit here, not replay. I think the refs stink though, so don't take that as an endorsement of them.
I thought there was suposed to be a timer on replays?
It just goes to show you that no matter how good an offense is or what kind of scheme you run or how good your QB is, it can all be netralized by a good pass rush.
That reversal if that interception was pretty bad and very suspicious. It appears to not be the only messed up call from the weekend. Seems like the Pats got the short end of the stick as far as penalty calls or non calls went and in the CHI-CAR game yesterday, a RB for CAR clearly loses the ball before it broke the plane of the goal line but the refs called it a TD. It was reversed but I'm thinking that the advent of instant replay has made on field officiating worse. Why get a call right when it can be reversed?
I like instant replay. What I don't like about it is all the replays for where the ball was spotted or crap like that. In college it's up to some official watching a monitor whether of not to review a call. At least in the NFL - except in the last 2 minutes of a half - a coach can decide whether or not a call should be reviewed. But I think it is abused and this is my solution for the abuse of instant replay. Coaches on the field are the only ones who can challenge a call. But if you challenge a call, you lose a time out even if your challenge is upheld.
The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.
I thought Big Ben's tackle after Bettis' fumble was the most amazing play in that game. I'm not sure many QB's would've made that type of effort and been successful. He kept his head in the play, that's for sure.
I also noticed that Kimo had hit on Manning that was very similar to the hit on Palmer. The big difference was that Manning had his back to Kimo, so his knee wasn't bent sideways...and Manning was still holding the ball.