Colts Pumping Artificial Noise into The Dome

[bustowithnobra]

The tragedy in this, is people are going to look at this and say thats not a big deal-which I dont think it is- but people look at Bellicheck trying to get some signals and is considered the 100 times worse cheating coach. I think the cheating has to be assessed on how much of an advantage it gives a team- and in a close game like the Pats-Colts, 5 yards for a false start could mean homefield advantage for the play-offs.

Edit: After reading the whole thread, my only comments are 1. if the Colts didn't do it, then so be it. 2. I do not think that the Krafts would be ostracized like Mangini, on the basis that pumping crowd noise is not as wide-spread in the NFL as watching defensive signals (theres a good chance I am wrong on this). 3. Anyone thinks Indy doesn't get over-favorable calls, look at the Indi-Stealers second round game 2 years ago on Peyton's "incomplete pass" that was absolutely an INT by Pomalu. There was 0 way that pass could have been an incomplete pass, ESPECIALLY since the ruling on the field was an INT.

[TheNoodleMan]

I'm only bringing it up because some people are so indignant about the ones that were called and are being pretty selective in their memory of events. There were plenty of close plays and calls, they went both ways.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
There were plenty of close plays and calls, they went both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

not really though...more calls went the Colts way, and even Indy writers are saying this. another example would be Faulk had his arm pulled back on that late 3rd down (when Brady flipped out) which was blatant PI and no call was made.

[damaniac]

You are suggesting that brush on the shoulder is PI? Really?

Edit: There may be PI on that play, would have to see the video, but those pics show nothing but a gentle brush on the shoulder.

[MC Chris]

right haha, i couldn't tell if he was arguing for or against the calls with those pics

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
right haha, i couldn't tell if he was arguing for or against the calls with those pics

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he's a Colts fan suggesting that calls went both ways, and it looks like that is a Pats DB defending a Colts WR. So unless they called offensive interference on that play, and I'm pretty sure they didn't, then either the photos don't do it justice (in which case it was dumb to post them), or he was a warped view of what pass interference ought to be (hint: it isn't one molecule from my hand touched one molecule of the receiver for a microsecond).

[NT!]

If you watch the full replay, whatever contact there was didn't appear to slow Wayne down at all, he just dropped the damn ball. He was completely separated from Hobbs when the ball got there and it went right through his hands.

[TheNoodleMan]

All I'm saying is that fans often forget the close ones that go their way while making a big deal out of the ones that go against them. That is a play that is sometimes called PI and sometimes not, just like some of the close ones that went against the Pats.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

don't forget the play where moss got blatantly speared after catching the 50+ yard pass.

Also, the refs did nothing when the colts were intentionally trying to copy the pats snap count during the kneel-down plays to try and cause a fumble.

that's why brady and welker flipped out on the refs

they were clearly biased and when they decided not to call the colts on faking the pats snap counts is when they gave it away.

Morons.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that fans often forget the close ones that go their way while making a big deal out of the ones that go against them. That is a play that is sometimes called PI and sometimes not, just like some of the close ones that went against the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]

The close one where the DB got tackled and was called for PI, or the close one where Moss didn't touch the DB and got called?

I agree with your general point, but in this context it's silly. It's like the other guy, whoever it was, that listed all the calls and called those two PI's "debatable". There are "debatable" and "close" calls, and there are atrocious calls. Those two were not "debatable" or "close"; trying to label them as such doesn't in any way make them so. What you seem to be saying is "Hey, the refs could have made another bad call here and didn't, so this somehow negates the point about the other two?"

Again, agree generally with your point, just not in this case.

(Disclosure: Lions fan, no real horse in this fight, although I prefer the Pats)