[Grits n' Gravy]

Bet Islands called refs

[indio]

The NFL HATES the gambling aspect of football and have done everything they possibly could do to stop it. Nothing makes the NFL happier when questionable ref calls decide the outcome of the spread (though not the outcome of the game)

Correct. The NFL is terrified of a fixed game scandal killing the golden goose cash machine. They think fans won't watch if they think it's fixed. Now, anyone with a shred of common sense knows the NFL is so popular because of gambling, and the NFL knows it too, but they think they have to portray a strong anti-gambling stance. This stance is so strong, that they had their power lobbyist Marty Gold get the UIGEA snuck through congress (why do you think it had an exempt clause for fantasy football?), and as a result, millions of online poker players got screwed. Yes, it was Marty Gold who was the adviser to Bill Frist and he made it happen. Also, the NFL's former legal rep was none other than US Attorney general Eric Holder, who probably was doing the NFL's work in many internet gambling seizures. If you look at lobbying reports (which I have), the NFL spends MILLIONS each year in lobbying congress to keep internet gambling illegal.

The NFL is a very sleazy corporation. If a scientist developed a foam rubber helmet that could keep players safer, the NFL would only consider it if it could still have the teams logo and colors on it. That's a fact. They are nothing like the men who ran the NFL in the 50's and 60's. Roger Goodell's father was a sleazy politician who was known for being for sale, and he's just like his ol' man.

It's ironic, since the NFL was essentially founded by gamblers. Art Rooney was a legendary gambler, as was others and Carol Rosenbloom (who owned the Colts). In fact, there are many who are convinced that in the NFL's "greatest game" in 1958, the reason the Colts didnt kick the chip shot field goal in overtime was that Rosenbloom had a large bet on his beloved Colts laying 4. That could be just a rumor, but it wouldnt be far fetched considering the people involved and the way things were then.

[stevenash]

^
Tremendous post.

To further your post, Bidwell fell ass backwards into his daddy's money. His dad was a
sleazy dirty Chicago lawyer with strong Al Capone ties. Charles Bidwell had the Chicago Cardinals.

Ralph Wilson dad was an insurance exec. Enough said.

Mike Brown is an idiot from all accounts, got the Bengals from daddy Paul Brown, an if it wasn't for football Mike would be roaming the streets penniless, because that's where all the Brown money is, in football. Mike is the GM also, which explains why the last time the Bengals were relevant, was, well, never.

Haslam is a dirty truck stop chain owner, who the Feds just raided his corporate offices for schemeing customers and shortchanging them on fuel rebates. He owns
those Pilot truck stops. Their coffee is real good though.

Broncos Browlen, another dirt bag lawyer, then took over dads
Regent oil.

Irsay? Don't get me started.

Dolphins Ross is another sleazy tax
attorney.

Saints Benson was nothing but a crooked used car salesman.

And let's not lose sight of the fact grand father Mara, Tim was a horse racing bookkeeper.

[BigJay]

I had a nickel on the Panthers plus 155 after Pats went up 3 late. So definitely not pass interference quite a sweat though once I saw the flag... In reality, in my opinion at least D holding...

[Robber]

Mr Walker hammered this one good

"JJ believe me when I tell you you will need a wheel barrel..I hit Carolina Hard"

A wheel barrel and a jumpsuite

[Big Bear]

what was Billy B thinking throwing the ball on 3rd and 1
inside the red zone ? he should have ran the ball with Blount twice .

That was a shady decision, bellichek is supposed to be a smart coach

[seaborneq]

Not really, I have seen them play better games, sure, but they ran the ball fine, Brady, until the last play was pick free, made a couple of bad throws, but was over 70 percent.
Ridley put the ball on the ground in the first half, besides that, how did that play 'that poorly'

The Patriots scored 3 whole points in the first half. The Patriots previous drive had a 3rd and 1 inside the 5 yard line and did not convert in what should have been two down territory. They would have assured themselves of no less than a tie if they were not playing poorly. The defense gave up four long drives to the Panthers and repeated failed to stop Cam from running for first downs on 3rd and longs. You can't convince me the Patriots would have scored from the 1 with one play with no time left and everything on the line. Full disclosure, I had the Patriots Monday and am still disappointed.

[InTheDrink]

this thread is losing steam

[trytrytry]

by your crazy definition the Auburn player vs Georgia could have been tackled during the throw... (becasue the ball was 6-10 yards short of where the ball was thrown) and would have never had a chance for that play then correct? ie thats good to go?? I realize college and nfl might have somewhat different rules but in general if the auburn Georgia play happened in the NFL , if that WR out of position was tackled thats OK then right? so what now tell all DBs, LBs to tackle, push, wrap up every live body more than 6 yards from where a ball is thrown?

Granted NE has to wait 50 years to complain about anything as they won a superbowl on the Tuck...so too bad NE..

I thinkt he refs however should have just said, on review of the play we missed that call..so be it..

[playoffhero12]

bare minimum DEF Holding u cant just bear hug a dude...

[playoffhero12]

agreed!

[d2bets]

The horse has been badly bludgeoned in this one. IF the pass was high enough the receiver could have at least touched the ball it would have been pass interference. Instead it was under thrown to a receiver in double coverage. The ball is not going to teleport through those two bodies and receiver is not going to turn on a cloaking device so he can stop and dive through those two bodies.

You have to be trying not to see what I'm telling you. The ball is under thrown and thrown inside with two defenders between the QB and receiver. IF the pass is high, eliminating a Jag from catching it, they would of called PI on the face guarding and bumping by the second defender.

You're doing too much predicting, that negates the uncatchable aspect. Yes, he would have been met there by the other defender and probably wouldn't have caught it. But maybe he gets a hand in there and it's tipped up and caught. That alone makes it catchable. Catchable doesn't mean it's easy or that he would have caught it, just that it's possible.

[Big Bear]

The Patriots scored 3 whole points in the first half. The Patriots previous drive had a 3rd and 1 inside the 5 yard line and did not convert in what should have been two down territory. They would have assured themselves of no less than a tie if they were not playing poorly. The defense gave up four long drives to the Panthers and repeated failed to stop Cam from running for first downs on 3rd and longs. You can't convince me the Patriots would have scored from the 1 with one play with no time left and everything on the line. Full disclosure, I had the Patriots Monday and am still disappointed.

it should have been 2 down territory indeed.

had they ran it twice they would have atleast taken more time off the clock
and made Carolina start from about the 10 yard if they didnt convert the 1st down.

[seaborneq]

it should have been 2 down territory indeed.

had they ran it twice they would have atleast taken more time off the clock
and made Carolina start from about the 10 yard if they didnt convert the 1st down.

thank you big bear. Yes carolina is good, but the Patriots had their best db on the sidline on the last drive and pretty much settled for a fg when a touchdown is mandatory in that situation. Pats played poorly more than they played well in that game. So im not convinced the Patriots would have scored from the one yard line even if they had first and goal on the one with one play on the line to win the game.

[Conan]

It was catch-able as explained by ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...me-ending-call

[d2bets]

It was catch-able as explained by ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...me-ending-call

This is spot on analysis.

But according to some, why use science when you can just guess. Highly improbably does not = uncatchable.

[Conan]

This is spot on analysis.

But according to some, why use science when you can just guess. Highly improbably does not = uncatchable.

exactly improbable is what the NFL does!

[d2bets]

We understand the uncatchable rule when the ball sails 10 feet over the player's head. No human can jump that high. I can also agree where a ball is well overthrown where no human has the speed to catch up to it. But other than that, it's not uncatchable. They're just guessing that Gronk wasn't planning to stop on a dime. But he could have. Maybe if he does, he and the other defender meet and the ball bounces off of the defender's hands to another receiver. As long as there is a possibility, then it ain't un-catchable. Case closed. They got the call wrong. And this should not be a "judgment call". If you need to exercise actual judgment in terms of catchability, then it's not uncatchable. They got the call wrong. Let's all agree and move on.

[SteveRyan]

It was catch-able as explained by ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...me-ending-call

Ya I don't buy that shiit. Gronk came into the end zone pretty hot and by the time he realized that he over-shot where he needed to be he did not have the time or agility to make a play on that ball.

[InTheDrink]

It was catch-able as explained by ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...me-ending-call

science basically proves what i maintained on the previous page where i posted the gif

drinker on the money....wash, rinse, repeat

[d2bets]

Ya I don't buy that shiit. Gronk came into the end zone pretty hot and by the time he realized that he over-shot where he needed to be he did not have the time or agility to make a play on that ball.

So your guess is better than science? Alrighty then.

If you have to debate it, then it's not uncatchable.

[InTheDrink]

So your guess is better than science? Alrighty then.

If you have to debate it, then it's not uncatchable.

common d2er....everyone knows that "pretty hot" is waaaay faster than the 16 mph stab in the dark those sciencey gueys were making

i think "pretty hot" = 42 mph

[d2bets]

http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-t...lag-was-picked

[Conan]

common d2er....everyone knows that "pretty hot" is waaaay faster than the 16 mph stab in the dark those sciencey gueys were making

i think "pretty hot" = 42 mph

sciencey gueys didn't take a shot in the dark they have a clock and yard markers and you think gronk is running fast enugh to get a speeding ticket on a main road in my town?

[BriGuy]

In order for the ball to be ruled "uncatchable" it has to be, according to the rulebook "clearly uncatchable" (emphasis mine). Considering about 90% of people, including the sports science guys at ESPN, thought the ball was definitely catchable, it really cannot be intelligently argued that it was "clearly uncatchable".

[SteveRyan]

sciencey gueys didn't take a shot in the dark they have a clock and yard markers and you think gronk is running fast enugh to get a speeding ticket on a main road in my town?

I don't care how fast he was going. Fact is, he was traveling at a good rate of speed and he over-shot the proximity zone that he needed to be in if he wanted to make that catch.

Remove the defenders from that scenario and we would be talking about how Brady blew the game with a short pass.

[boeing power]

agreed!

You forgot to sign out of your ghost account when you agreed with yourself.

[Conan]

I don't care how fast he was going. Fact is, he was traveling at a good rate of speed and he over-shot the proximity zone that he needed to be in if he wanted to make that catch.

Remove the defenders from that scenario and we would be talking about how Brady blew the game with a short pass.

you can see him trying to plant to change direction and being pushed backwards!

[pavyracer]

It was a horrible pass. That's why the safety intercepted it. If Kuechly didn't block Gronk the safety would have still battered the ball down. It's the laws of physics. Ball is thrown late, low and not with enough speed.

[SteveRyan]

you can see him trying to plant to change direction and being pushed backwards!

Planted too late and moving too fast.

[BriGuy]

It was a horrible pass. That's why the safety intercepted it. If Kuechly didn't block Gronk the safety would have still battered the ball down. It's the laws of physics. Ball is thrown late, low and not with enough speed.

You're absolutely right, but that cannot be a factor when determining if the ball is catchable or not. The rules say that the ball must be clearly uncatchable for all players involved, and since one of the involved players actually caught it, it was obviously catchable.

[d2bets]

You're absolutely right, but that cannot be a factor when determining if the ball is catchable or not. The rules say that the ball must be clearly uncatchable for all players involved, and since one of the involved players actually caught it, it was obviously catchable.

Let's not confuse the matter. I do believe that the uncatchable part refers to the player that was interfered with, not just any player on the field. But you are right that it was not clearly uncatchable for Gronk and sports science got it right. I'd say Gronk had maybe a 10-15% chance of catching it. That's more than enough to make it not uncatchable.

[jimminn]

It was definitely pass interference.

[retard]

It was PI Luke kueckly did the same exact thing against the bills that cost them the game.

[Big Bear]

It was PI Luke kueckly did the same exact thing against the bills that cost them the game.

sure did. But the refs were okay calling that a penalty b/c public was on the panthers