Whose fault?

[Kurn]

A coworker just came back from lunch and told me they were discussing last night's game on the radio and one person said that according to NFL rules a timeout can only be called by a) a player on the field or b) the head coach.

Clearly, the Ravens' timeout was called from the sideline by their defensive coordinator. Is it the ref's fault for not verifying who called it from the sideline or is this a situation where standard practice is usually not 100% according to the rules?

Also, if anyone can verify whether or not that actually is the rule would help, too.

[Talking Poker]

I don't know the rule, but I do know that that pay was a mess. The PAts had like 3 straight 4th downs (would have been game over on the first two), and then another one right before the TD...

Amazing that they pulled off that win (that they didn't deserve).

So much for the talk of running up the score though, eh?

[Reel Deal]

From what I understand it is a rule. Now, whether it was written with enough detail to expressly state that the ref has a burden of verifying who actually is calling for the timeout, who knows? But if the ref doesn't verify it, doesn't that mean that the ref will call a T.O. if he hears any voice from the sideline asking for one? I would think it is (or should be) on the ref to verify who is asking for the T.O.

P.S. - Gaffney was bobbling that ball. :P

[de-coder]

No shit - I think the pats got a lot of help last night.

[Kurn]

P.S. - Gaffney was bobbling that ball. :P

Wrong. Both hands were in contact with the ball 100% of the time.

On the other hand, the 3 straight 4th downs did remind me of the Russians winning the B-Ball olympic gold.

[GTDawg]

It is a rule. I'm not sure what the standard practice is about calling the timeout and sorting things out later. I would assume the line judge is staring down the line of scrimmage and if he hears someone screaming timeout and running down the sidelines at him and motioning for a timeout...he's not going to let the play go and verify if it was a valid timeout later. (Could you imagine the uproar if he did that and the Pats scored on that play and the Ravens cried bloody murder because they were calling for a timeout from the sidelines but the evil refs let the play go anyway?)

==========
As for the fourth downs...
The ravens called time out
The pats false started
Brady runs for a 12 yard gain.

It's not like the refs kept making up reasons to allow the Pats to get another chance.

That being said, the Ravens implosion was in slow motion and you could see the Patriots winning from a mile away. It was inevitable. You just saw it coming after the interception on the drive that would've ended it for all intents and purposes.

[de-coder]

Which is not enough to have control of the ball (even if it were correct, which it isn't) - the 2 things are different. If you use that standard many incomplete passes should be overturned on review.

I think you actually need to be in possession and in control of the ball to have a catch.

In this case the ball clearly moved between his fingertips on his right hand and the palm of his left - he didn't have it for another 1/2 step, which put him out of bounds. In any event that play never should've happened - what a bunch of lucksacks.

If you get caught cheating just get lucky!

[Talking Poker]

I believe he had control and that it was a catch, but what you just said is absolutely not true. Both hand were not in contact with the ball 100% of the time. At the end of the catch (well out of bounds), the ball was in his right hand only, so obviously his left hand came off at some point.

I don't think there was enough evidence to overturn the call, but I also don't think he had "control" (by definition) of the ball BEFORE getting his second foot down in bounds.

The Pats got a LOT of help during that last drive.

[Reel Deal]

[Kurn]

I'm not denying that the ball is moving in his right palm, it is, but his left hand is on the ball. To indicate a loss of control, the ref must be able to see space between the ball and the receiver's hands/body.

It was close, and had the call on the field been incomplete, I don't think they could've overturned it either.

I'll agree with Samari Rolle on one thing, the defense is hamstrung by today's rules. But to hint that the NFL wants the Patriots to remain undefeated to sell seats is ridiculous. They sell just as many seats in years with no undefeated teams. In fact, the league designs scheduling and drafting in such a way that one might think their ultimate goal is 32 8-8 teams.

The media, and some fans, hype the going undefeated angle. As I've said, as a Pats fan, that's no higher than #3 on my wish list. Right now #1 & #2 looks good - the Pats are looking like the favorite to win the Super Bowl, and if the bottom of the standings stay the same, they'll have the #2 overall pick in the draft. I'll take 15-1 in the regular season if I get the other two.

Besides, as Brady said, 19-0 is no big deal. His Pats already won 21 straight once.

[Kurn]

Wel, if I were standing in front of you with a football in my hands, I could easily demonstrate that you can be moving the ball in between you hands and it still being "secured'.

And if stealing defensive signals is cheating, I want them to cheat.

Saying you think a rule against stealing visual signals by any means is a good rule for football is sort of like like saying you think the Foxwoods tournament rule that you can't talk to your opponent even when HU is good for poker.

[drewjax]

Didnt deserve it huh? mmmmmmmmmmk

just another jealous hater in the house.........

12-0 bitches

For all you who are whining today, one word..........

SCOREBOARD

[drewjax]

.......says the moron with no clue!!

[Talking Poker]

I'm not a hater at all. I think the Patriots are an amzing machine, and I enjoy watching them.

But last night, Baltimore played better and deserved to win. And if you watched the game and weren't so blinded by your bandwagonness (you're from Detroit, right?), you'd agree.

At least Kurn lives in New England.

[GTDawg]

I dunno...I mean...

Nobody told that defensive coordinator to call a timeout. The refs didn't tell the linebackers to break containment and allow Brady to run for 12 yards. And, it's a common rule that you aren't allowed to wrap your left hand around a tight end after 5 yards.

If you want to argue about the TD pass being "controlled". Then, you look at the rule that there has to be sufficient evidence to over turn the call on the field...which there wasn't.

If had been called an incomplete pass, I don't think there was enough to call it a TD from the replays.

I'd like to blame Bohler for throwing a stupid interception on the drive that would've put a dagger in the perfect season.

[drewjax]

Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Irish catholic new englander born and raised......

I just move more than anyone ever.


And this aint college. NFL games are 60 minutes long.

[Gordogg]

Why not blame Ed Reed for fumbling the ball after he picked it off? If he would've just held on to the ball instead of trying to run it back for a TD, they would've probably won the game. The Ravens had plenty of opportunities to win the game, they choked. I don't see anything wrong with the calls the refs made.

[drewjax]

ding ding ding ding

we have a winnar

[Dodoubled]

Kurn:

This appeared in Peter King's MMQB Tuesday Edition:

"New England ball, fourth-and-1, Baltimore 30, 1:48 left, Baltimore up 24-20. At the last second before the snap, Baltimore defensive coordinator Rex Ryan calls timeout. The play went on, with Baltimore stuffing Tom Brady for a loss and, theoretically, that should have been New England's last gasp. One problem. Only the head coach is supposed to be able to call time on the sidelines. But in this case, the league has interpreted the rule on a last-millisecond timeout call that the side official cannot be responsible for seeing whether it's the head coach or another coach who calls time. So it's technically legal for Ryan to have called the timeout, and the league's point is the head coach is responsible for controlling his bench. In this case, Brian Billick has to be responsible for his sideline, and when Ryan calls time, the burden is on Billick to accept the call because it happened on the Baltimore sideline."

That should clear it up, at least about the timeout issue. The catch? Well, I thought it was pretty clear that he was in. But I guess that's a matter of opinion.

[Reel Deal]

I always thought that the ball couldn't be moving or shifting in the receivers hands for it to be considered under control, but I'm not 100% on that. But, yeah, very close and I agree that they probably couldn't have overturned in the other way either.

I just hope my Jags get a shot at you guys in the playoffs.

[Robbie Robb]

Yet somehow managed to occupy a 4 hour block of time on the TV schedule and NEVER finish anywhere near on time - thus always screwing up my PVR recordings of Amazing Race and Shark.

[Gordogg]

Oh and that was definitely a catch. It was close, but he did establish possession inbounds with both hands and not until he was out of bounds did he attempt to shift it to his other hand.

[Reel Deal]

[Gordogg]

Puff puff give nigga!