watching cowboys-pats?

[Tutor]

refs at it again. unbelievable.

[Percy Flage]

On 16/10/2011 21:57, Tutor wrote:
> refs at it again. unbelievable.

Aye, fucking unbelievable.

I'm impartial on this one, I want both teams to lose, but PI in the end
zone offset against an unseen hold.

--
Percy Flage
"Life is too short to have to explain everyday."

[Kulin Remailer]

In article <2491e351-0d13-4ba2...@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com>

Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> refs at it again. unbelievable.

If you want to blame the officiating by the zebras, look at Super Bowl XL.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tutor" <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2491e351-0d13-4ba2...@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

> refs at it again. unbelievable.

No Tutor, you're just hatin on the Patriots.
the Pats receivers were getting mugged all day.
say what you want about the Fat Fuck Ryans, like their daddy they can coach
defense.
Shula, Landry and BB were all defense guys as assistants but they all
developed killer offenses when head coaches.
the Ryans don't seem to be able to reverse engineer like those guys were
able to do.

[Tutor]

On Oct 16, 11:49 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Tutor" <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Pats get calls other teams don't. It gets worse every year. Breathe
on Brady and it's a roughing call, while other QBs get pummeled time
and time again w/out a flag. It's consistent and disturbing. Just
loved the holding call to negate the PI in the endzone. and the
ruling on the field is: it's a do-over for the Pats. I understand why
you need to deny the obvious. No worries.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tutor" <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:72e86389-fd54-4120...@h39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

=================================================================

no they don't and even other Jets fans have pointed that out to you.
You just hate the Pats so much that you imagine every call is an outrage and
that their are more than there really is.
Welker was getting held and bumped illegally all day and no calss went his
way.

[Michael]

i think there were a few questionable calls... still... that is not
what cost the cowboys the game...

the dalls offensive calls in their last two dallas drives were very
odd... the cowboys have too much talent to warrant going into a shell
like that...

the loss was on garret. may be he was just spooked because of romo's
predilection for last minute mistakes.

the same thing that cost the jets their game against the pats cost
dalls as well... bad offensive play calling...

at least dallas did not have senven streaigh three and outs... garret
and schotty can have a drink together and talk about it.

[Deadmeat]

When the owner of the team comes out and says that maybe they should run
the ball more in those situations, the coach has to listen.

If Romo had thrown the ball and it was picked, there would be more of an
uproar in Dallas. Besides, until that point the Dallas defense was
doing a good job.

But, you don't want to put the ball in Bradys hands with the game on the
line. So you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

[Michael]

> line.  So you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ahh... i guess i'm not up to speed on this one... it was jones that
stepped in and told garret to run the ball ??? did jones make a prior
remark about running the ball, or did he specifically call the
sidelines and tell garret to run three straight times when all they
needed was a single first down to win the game ??? if it was a prior
"suggestion" by jones, then it is still garret's blunder... If Jones
was playing OC and called to the sidelines, then it is on jones...
Jones is a very “involved” owner as we all know, but I don’t think
Jones runs the game real time.

[Deadmeat]

Well he did say a couple of weeks ago they should have gone conservative
against the Lions. But I just read where he thinks they should have
been more aggressive at the end of the game yesterday. So, yeah, it's
on Garret, even though he had the prior comment in the back of his head,
I'll guess.

[Ray O'Hara]

<Deadmeat> wrote in message
news:4e9c6f0e$0$10431$c3e8da3$14a0...@news.astraweb.com...

jerry is very good at the monday morning QBing.
he is a very hands on owner and he has only himself to blame.

[Michael]

> > Jones is a very �involved� owner as we all know, but  I don�t think

> > Jones runs the game real time.
>
> Well he did say a couple of weeks ago they should have gone conservative
> against the Lions.  But I just read where he thinks they should have
> been more aggressive at the end of the game yesterday.  So, yeah, it's
> on Garret, even though he had the prior comment in the back of his head,

> I'll guess.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

yeah... on garret... to be fair, the late game melt-downs by romo had
a part in garret's decision making...

[Tutor]

Mine is not an opinion restricted to Jets fans. It is discussed on
NFL boards and the pattern of favorable calls to Steelers and Pats is
shared a lot more than you are willing to admit. Main biased issues/
calls with officials in Pats games:

1. Brady is untouchable for defenses.....You saw it yesterday, classic
Brady "roughing the passer" which would never be called on most other
QBs.

2. Illegal contact/ defensive holding/ PI......Ticky-tack calls in
each game almost always in the favor of New England, especially on 3rd
downs (This one gets under my skin but is even worse for Steelers)

3. Patriots O-line hardly gets called for holding/ compared to
opposition....

P.S. there is only one team I hate in the NFL: Miami DOlphins. It
hink the Patriots are a well run organization and I have a lot of
respect for Robert Kraft, whom I think is an excellent owner.
Belicheat is a great HC and at the end of the day, even though he is a
cheat and a despicable human being apparently, he is a terrific HC. I
don't hate your beloved team. I do think that the large share of the
Pats fan base is arrogant and is comprised of a huge number of
bandwagonners. But that has nothing to do with the team.

But for you to deny that the refs favor your team is either dishonesty
or blind (literally) homerism.

[MZ]

On Oct 16, 4:57 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> refs at it again.  unbelievable.

You have a lot of nerve citing ref issues after your screwup last
week. ;)

[MZ]

On Oct 17, 12:18 am, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 11:49 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Tutor" <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2491e351-0d13-4ba2...@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > refs at it again.  unbelievable.
>
> > No Tutor, you're just hatin on the Patriots.
> > the Pats receivers were getting mugged all day.
> > say what you want about the Fat Fuck Ryans, like their daddy they can coach
> > defense.
> > Shula, Landry and BB were all defense guys as assistants but they all
> > developed killer offenses when head coaches.
> > the Ryans don't seem to be able to reverse engineer like those guys were
> > able to do.
>
> Pats get calls other teams don't.  It gets worse every year. Breathe
> on Brady and it's a roughing call, while other QBs get pummeled time
> and time again w/out a flag.

Brady was ranked 32nd in roughing calls last season. I pointed this
out a week or two ago. You ignore facts.

>  It's consistent and disturbing. Just
> loved the holding call to negate the PI in the endzone.  and the
> ruling on the field is: it's a do-over for the Pats.  I understand why
> you need to deny the obvious.  No worries.

You understand the concept behind offsetting penalties, right? Or are
you saying it wasn't holding? Watch the play and tell me Warren
wasn't held. Seriously tutor, I used to think you were a good poster,
but your conspiracy theories are getting completely out of control.

[MZ]

On Oct 17, 11:48 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:18 am, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Pats get calls other teams don't.  It gets worse every year. Breathe
> > on Brady and it's a roughing call, while other QBs get pummeled time
> > and time again w/out a flag.
>
> Brady was ranked 32nd in roughing calls last season.  I pointed this
> out a week or two ago.  You ignore facts.

Here it is again:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/sorry-Michael-Vick-NFL-referees-do-not-play-favorites-092911

But I guess all your friends on the "NFL boards" have more objectivity
than the numbers.

[Tutor]

Mark,

Patrs get so many favorable calls its unreal. Give it up. Of all the
things Pats fans shouldn't be doiing is saying that the refs don't
give Brady and the rest of the team preferential treatment. You guys
are ridiculous. I didn't screw anything up last week. Call should
not have been overturned. For most other teams it would not have
been.

Sorry, I am sick of the preferential treatment the Pats get week after
week, year after year. Some Pats fans are so used to it that it has
become part of the game for them. It has become a sore spot for me,
so I will post it when it happens. You don't need to read it if you
don't want to. In fact, be my guest and don't. Won't change what is
obvious on the field.

[Tutor]

> but your conspiracy theories are getting completely out of control.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Then don't open my posts. Any Pats fan who can't admit that his team
gets clear preferential treatment shouldn't be visiting opposing teams
fan sites. Too painful for you.

[oldn...@mindspring.com]

On Monday, October 17, 2011 11:54:47 PM UTC-4, MZ wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:48 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:

> > On Oct 17, 12:18 am, Tutor <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Pats get calls other teams don't.  It gets worse every year. Breathe
> > > on Brady and it's a roughing call, while other QBs get pummeled time
> > > and time again w/out a flag.
> >
> > Brady was ranked 32nd in roughing calls last season.  I pointed this
> > out a week or two ago.  You ignore facts.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/sorry-Michael-Vick-NFL-referees-do-not-play-favorites-092911
>
> But I guess all your friends on the "NFL boards" have more objectivity
> than the numbers.

Beware, people in this group really do not like facts that contradict what they know. Especially in the form of bogus statistics.

[Tutor]

On Oct 18, 2:28 am, oldna...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2011 11:54:47 PM UTC-4, MZ wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 11:48 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > On Oct 17, 12:18 am, Tutor <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Pats get calls other teams don't.  It gets worse every year. Breathe
> > > > on Brady and it's a roughing call, while other QBs get pummeled time
> > > > and time again w/out a flag.
>
> > > Brady was ranked 32nd in roughing calls last season.  I pointed this
> > > out a week or two ago.  You ignore facts.
>
> > Here it is again:
>

> >http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/sorry-Michael-Vick-NFL-referees-do...

>
> > But I guess all your friends on the "NFL boards" have more objectivity
> > than the numbers.
>

> Beware, people in this group really do not like facts that contradict what they know. Especially in the form of bogus statistics.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL. Ok Pats *don't* get preferential treatment. Pulease.

I guess the Steelers don't either.

[MLD]

<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:18378829.2154.1318922922536.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdd1...

Or, don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up!

[MZ]

On Oct 18, 3:16 am, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 10:43 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:57 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > refs at it again.  unbelievable.
>
> > You have a lot of nerve citing ref issues after your screwup last
> > week.  ;)
>
> Mark,
>
> Patrs get so many favorable calls its unreal.  Give it up.  Of all the
> things Pats fans shouldn't be doiing is saying that the refs don't
> give Brady and the rest of the team preferential treatment.  You guys
> are ridiculous.  I didn't screw anything up last week.  Call should
> not have been overturned.  For most other teams it would not have
> been.

Then you don't understand the game of football. When a player is
touched and his knee is down, it's the end of the play. There were
half a dozen people who explained this to you.

> Sorry, I am sick of the preferential treatment the Pats get week after
> week, year after year.  Some Pats fans are so used to it that it has
> become part of the game for them.  It has become a sore spot for me,
> so I will post it when it happens.  You don't need to read it if you
> don't want to.  In fact, be my guest and don't.  Won't change what is
> obvious on the field.

When you say "obvious", you're looking at things through tainted
glasses. I've provided data and photographic evidence to back up what
I've said. You've cited "NFL forums".

>Then don't open my posts. Any Pats fan who can't admit that his team
> gets clear preferential treatment shouldn't be visiting opposing teams
> fan sites. Too painful for you.

The others here are reasonable and are pretty well-known for looking
at issues -- all issues -- through an objective lens. You've got a
vendetta against a football team, which is just plain odd.

[Tutor]

On Oct 18, 8:39 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 3:16 am, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 10:43 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 4:57 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > refs at it again.  unbelievable.
>
> > > You have a lot of nerve citing ref issues after your screwup last
> > > week.  ;)
>
> > Mark,
>
> > Patrs get so many favorable calls its unreal.  Give it up.  Of all the
> > things Pats fans shouldn't be doiing is saying that the refs don't
> > give Brady and the rest of the team preferential treatment.  You guys
> > are ridiculous.  I didn't screw anything up last week.  Call should
> > not have been overturned.  For most other teams it would not have
> > been.
>
> Then you don't understand the game of football.  When a player is
> touched and his knee is down, it's the end of the play.  There were
> half a dozen people who explained this to you.

Only if he had control of the ball while his knee is down. That's
what the first ref and Sims were talking about. If he did not, then
the initial call is correct. There was not conclusive evidence he had
that control. Should not have been overturned.

[MZ]

Then what caused the fumble? Nothing?

If that's the case, then how can you reason that it was even a
completion? If you want to debate whether or not it was a completion,
that makes a little sense. But to say that was a fumble doesn't.

[Tutor]

> that makes a little sense.  But to say that was a fumble doesn't.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

A reception can be made, the receiver go down without being touched
and then start bobbling the ball before being hit. Possession is
transitory, not fixed. So if he starts to juggle that ball while
being down (before being hit) If the ball comes loose upon being hit,
that should be a fumble per the rules. That is what Simms said
happened and also what Carl Banks said the very next day on the radio
here in NY. It is not as cut and dry as many are making it out to
be. Of course perreira swept it under the rug like he always does for
everything (What a joke he is). Had it not been the Pats, I doubt
highly the initial ruling gets overturned, right or wrong. The issue
is that for how many teams does that ruling get overturned and for how
many teams does it not? Does it get overturned for the teams that get
consistent preferential treatment such as the Pats and not for
others? But of course everyone wants to argue whether it was the
"right" call instead of whether or not the overturn happens the same
for all teams (which I contend it would not). You are missing the
point.

[MZ]

So your assertion, then, is that Pace did not cause the fumble.
You're saying that Branch fumbled the ball before he was ever
touched. This is different from what you said initially, if I
recall. When it first happened, I thought you said that Branch
fumbled as he was getting up (i.e. after his knee was down, he got up
and THEN fumbled).

Whatever. I don't begrudge anyone for changing their opinion. The
bigger issue here is that you were SO certain you were right that you
started a thread talking about the great NFL conspiracy. You never
even considered the possibility that you were wrong. Now, you seem to
be acknowledging that you were wrong (about that).

[Tutor]

> be acknowledging that you were wrong (about that).- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No it's the same exact contention, the one that Simms alluded to in
the broadcast. i just worded it poorly. At the time when he was hit
(as he was moving to get up) he was shifting the ball and as a result
did not have the same full control as when he went down. Then he was
hit and the balkl went flying out. His knee was down but without full
possession. That's what Sims and Carl Banks the next day referred to
as transitional possession. That is a fumble and Perreira simply
ignored the issue entirely. I can understand not wanting to open
Pandora's box. Now as for conspiracy... had this been a Jet receiver
down and hit by a Pat with the same initial ruling, I do not think for
a split second the ruling gets overturned. There is nothing you can
say to convince me otherwise.

Feet tangled and incidental contact on a PI call against thePats? No
problem... 2d zebra comes running in to make the first pick up the
flag, and no PI on the Pats. When the same play happens the next week
against the Jets? Where's that 2d zebra? right, nowhere to be
found. Last night's non call on Revis? Had it been Brady-to-Branch
instead of Moore-to-bipolar Marshall, the flag would have been
flying. When in doubt, we know which way it goes. Close call?
forget it... It's been happening for years. Look, until I see the
refs change thier bias, you can call me names and argue there is no
bias until you are blue in the face. Fine. I am convinced there is.
I think it's obvious (and so do others including many non Jets fans)
and that's how I see it. Agree to disagree then becuase we're just
going in circles. Hey there must be something to it. It's got Pratt
the moron's attention now as he is feverishly posting trying to turn
the tables. That alone is worth it. He's such a little hand
puppet. :)

[MZ]

On Oct 18, 10:17 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No it's the same exact contention, the one that Simms alluded to in
> the broadcast.  i just worded it poorly.  At the time when he was hit
> (as he was moving to get up) he was shifting the ball and as a result
> did not have the same full control as when he went down.  Then he was
> hit and the balkl went flying out.  His knee was down but without full
> possession.  That's what Sims and Carl Banks the next day referred to
> as transitional possession.  That is a fumble and Perreira simply
> ignored the issue entirely.

I'm still not sure I know what you're saying. Answer this: do you
believe he fumbled the ball before Pace touched him?

> Feet tangled and incidental contact on a PI call against thePats?  No
> problem... 2d zebra comes running in to make the first pick up the
> flag, and no PI on the Pats.  When the same play happens the next week
> against the Jets?  Where's that 2d zebra?  right, nowhere to be
> found.

I agree with you that feet tangled should not be a PI call. The ref
called it right the first time, and wrong the second. But to say that
this hasn't hit the Pats is ridiculous. As I've mentioned before, it
potentially cost them a trip to the super bowl in '05 when they called
it on Asante Samuel. It was THE main thing in the Denver game that
lost it for them, IMO, completely changing the complexion of the game
(and I think they matched up well that year with Pittsburgh). So
don't tell me about feet being tangled!

> Last night's non call on Revis?  Had it been Brady-to-Branch
> instead of Moore-to-bipolar Marshall, the flag would have been
> flying.  When in doubt, we know which way it goes.  Close call?
> forget it...   It's been happening for years. Look, until I see the
> refs change thier bias, you can call me names and argue there is no
> bias until you are blue in the face.  Fine.  I am convinced there is.
> I think it's obvious (and so do others including many non Jets fans)
> and that's how I see it.  Agree to disagree then becuase we're just
> going in circles.  Hey there must be something to it.  It's got Pratt
> the moron's attention now as he is feverishly posting trying to turn
> the tables.  That alone is worth it.  He's such a little hand
> puppet.  :)

Yes, lots of NFL fans think there's a bias in favor of the Pats,
Colts, and Steelers. But I think you (and others) have causation
backwards. These three teams haven't been the three dominant teams in
the NFL because of bias; the perceived bias is there because they've
been the three dominant teams! Nobody's saying there's bias in favor
of the Bills. Why would they? The Bills don't win anything. They
usually suck, so they usually don't have calls go their way, and even
if they did, nobody would pay attention to it because the Bills are
irrelevant. I guarantee nobody in your NFL forums talks about Jason
Campbell getting all the calls (even though the numbers prove that he
does). Why? Because 1) nobody gives a flying F about Jason Campbell.
and 2) nobody gives a flying F about the Oakland Raiders. That alone
should tell you that the real bias lies in the scrutiny of teams.

[Tutor]

On Oct 19, 12:05 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 10:17 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No it's the same exact contention, the one that Simms alluded to in
> > the broadcast.  i just worded it poorly.  At the time when he was hit
> > (as he was moving to get up) he was shifting the ball and as a result
> > did not have the same full control as when he went down.  Then he was
> > hit and the balkl went flying out.  His knee was down but without full
> > possession.  That's what Sims and Carl Banks the next day referred to
> > as transitional possession.  That is a fumble and Perreira simply
> > ignored the issue entirely.
>
> I'm still not sure I know what you're saying.  Answer this: do you
> believe he fumbled the ball before Pace touched him?

I believe he did not have control of the ball at the precise moment
Pace plowed into him. And if that is true, then per NFL rules, it is a
fumble. Perriera said his knee was down with control. Original ref
said he wasn't controlling it when hit. The evidence was far from
conclusive. All the bozos here keep saying "but his knee was down,
you dont understand the rules". Au Contraire people, Knee down is
irrelevant if/when the player has less than full control of the ball.
He caught it, had control, went down untouched, so faf so good...
while knee on the ground tried to shift the ball from one hand to the
other (while trying to get up - but that is not the important thing)
and he was hit while the ball was not possessed cleanly with either
hand. Fumble. Original ref was right and Perreira swept it under.
I'm over it. Bad overturn. Need more conclusive evidence, in fact
video showed the ball moving so no way can it be overturned.

I absolutely agree that the excellent play of the Pats, Steelers and
Colts was the cause of the favoritism. I never said otherwise. I
have the causation correct, Mark. It's the favoritism I object to.
It pisses me off. Its unfair. And it can change the outcome of
games. I understand how the favoritism develops - great talent and
influential ownership, as Michael indicated in his post re the
Steelers. As for talent: Case in point: Revis v. Cromartie. If that
were Cromartie on the Brandon Marshall play, the flag would have been
out instantly. Find one post where I claimed that the favoritism
caused the Jkets to lose or the Pats to win that game. You can't
because I never said so. I did say that it changed the complexion of
the game, which I stand by.

[MZ]

On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:05 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 10:17 pm, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > No it's the same exact contention, the one that Simms alluded to in
> > > the broadcast.  i just worded it poorly.  At the time when he was hit
> > > (as he was moving to get up) he was shifting the ball and as a result
> > > did not have the same full control as when he went down.  Then he was
> > > hit and the balkl went flying out.  His knee was down but without full
> > > possession.  That's what Sims and Carl Banks the next day referred to
> > > as transitional possession.  That is a fumble and Perreira simply
> > > ignored the issue entirely.
>
> > I'm still not sure I know what you're saying.  Answer this: do you
> > believe he fumbled the ball before Pace touched him?
>
> I believe he did not have control of the ball at the precise moment
> Pace plowed into him. And if that is true, then per NFL rules, it is a
> fumble.  Perriera said his knee was down with control. Original ref
> said he wasn't controlling it when hit.  The evidence was far from
> conclusive.  All the bozos here keep saying "but his knee was down,
> you dont understand the rules".  Au Contraire people,  Knee down is
> irrelevant if/when the player has less than full control of the ball.

What does "less than full control" mean?

Either he fumbled the ball (before being hit) or he didn't. I thought
the video clearly showed that the fumble came when Pace hit him.

> He caught it, had control, went down untouched, so faf so good...
> while knee on the ground tried to shift the ball from one hand to the
> other (while trying to get up - but that is not the important thing)
> and he was hit while the ball was not possessed cleanly with either
> hand.  Fumble.  Original ref was right and Perreira swept it under.
> I'm over it.  Bad overturn. Need more conclusive evidence, in fact
> video showed the ball moving so no way can it be overturned.

Ah, I think that's where you're making a mistake. Shifting the ball
from one hand to the other is not a fumble. It's still possession. I
think it's obvious that possession was lost when Pace hit him.

[Tutor]

> think it's obvious that possession was lost when Pace hit him.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ok. we disagree there. The 1st zebra obviously thought he lacked
control. So do I. If you think the replay is "conclusive" that he
maintained control, then fine. I don't. I always thought
"conclusive" was required to overturn.

[MZ]

No. I think the 1st zebra thought that Branch's knee wasn't down.
That Branch fumbled the ball after he had gotten up. That's exactly
why I thought it was a fumble when I saw it live. I wasn't aware that
Pace had touched him while his knee while still on the ground. That
negates the fumble.

>  If you think the replay is "conclusive" that he
> maintained control, then fine.  I don't.  I always thought
> "conclusive" was required to overturn.

It's so obvious, of course it's conclusive! I urge you to watch it
again. There's absolutely zero evidence that he began fumbling the
ball before Pace touched him. Pace forced the fumble by punching the
ball out with his right hand. The only aspect of this play that was
ever questionable was when Pace touched him relative to his knee being
down.

[oldn...@mindspring.com]

FOers looks at the Pats no-huddle O versus the Rob Ryan defense:

http://footballoutsiders.com/cover-2/2011/cover-2-no-huddle-defense

[Tutor]

All of this misses the point. Had the receiver been a Jet with Ryan
throwing the flag, the odds of it bring overturned are greatly
reduced. Feel free to disagree, but I believe things like this lean
towards Pats.