The single most reason Bill Bilichick blew that game

[jaejonna]

It was a catch hahahahahh


we win bitches ....18 and 1

[body88]

I'm not going to whine about "the catch". It was a catch. The pats had a bunch of chances to put the game away. Samuel , Harrison and Meriweather all dropped game ending int's.

The pats deserved to lose. They played flat , uninspired football.

The  g men played better. They played like champions. The pats O line should all give there game checks back.  Belichick and Mcdaniels did not ccoach a good game , and several pats players looked like they where sleep walking.

[ATHEIST]

Your an idiot...try googling the catch...Everyone is talking about if it was a catch or not...You don't hear anyone on the networks talking about it because they just had the parade today for crying out loud...And the pats will never talk about it...Its just not there style...

And for the record, I could give a rats ass who won the game...How in the world anyone who calls themselves a fan of the game can't believe why the refs didn't atleast look at the catch is just fucking weird to me...Again no sour grapes here..I'll be the first one to tell ya that Brady's girlfriend is as about as real as Tom Cruises wife...

By everyone do you mean delusional Pats fans? so let me get this straight..you googled the catch and its all over the place...but yet no one on any of the networks is talking about it because they already had the parade???  
  its easy to understand why the refs didnt review the catch, because it was a clear catch plain and simple. live with it. its not going to change. in fact just for you ill go check espn.com, cbs sports, aol sports and fox sports and see if i can find this surge of contravercy invovlving the catch. how much information do you think i'll find?

[body88]

By everyone do you mean delusional Pats fans? so let me get this straight..you googled the catch and its all over the place...but yet no one on any of the networks is talking about it because they already had the parade???  
  its easy to understand why the refs didnt review the catch, because it was a clear catch plain and simple. live with it. its not going to change. in fact just for you ill go check espn.com, cbs sports, aol sports and fox sports and see if i can find this surge of contravercy invovlving the catch. how much information do you think i'll find?

Its a moot point imo. Samuel , Harrison and Meriweather all dropped game ending ints. The catch was a catch. It was a great one to.

[Spoony Luv]

By everyone do you mean delusional Pats fans? so let me get this straight..you googled the catch and its all over the place...but yet no one on any of the networks is talking about it because they already had the parade???  
  its easy to understand why the refs didnt review the catch, because it was a clear catch plain and simple. live with it. its not going to change. in fact just for you ill go check espn.com, cbs sports, aol sports and fox sports and see if i can find this surge of contravercy invovlving the catch. how much information do you think i'll find?

Your right nobody on the networks will bring it up at all...Not one person...Not one person will even ask the question of whether the ball touched the ground...Not one person will even try to explain why it would be a catch if it hit the ground...

Fact is you were in the kitchen all night drinking wine with the wifes of the real football fans while the game was going on...Remember your the one who said Shockey didn't even show up at the "SB"...The only time you came out from the kitchen was to watch the commericals...That is what you do...

[ATHEIST]

Its a moot point imo. Samuel , Harrison and Meriweather all dropped game ending ints. The catch was a catch. It was a great one to.

 Yes it is a moot point. i just find it curious that Spoony would be so desperate enough to consider it a factor when it never was.
 
i am by no means rubbing it in the face of Pats fans, they could have easily won the game and by no means is it the end of their dynasty,or even close to it.

 

[Spoony Luv]

I'm not going to whine about "the catch". It was a catch. The pats had a bunch of chances to put the game away. Samuel , Harrison and Meriweather all dropped game ending int's.

The pats deserved to lose. They played flat , uninspired football.

The  g men played better. They played like champions. The pats O line should all give there game checks back.  Belichick and Mcdaniels did not ccoach a good game , and several pats players looked like they where sleep walking.



















You seem to really know your shit when it comes to football...Lets put "that catch" a side and answer me this...

Are you saying that in ANY NFL football game a ball can touch the ground even if its not pulled into the body and or the hands are not under the ball? And are you saying that a player can hold the ball against the  top of his head and as he falls to the ground and the ball can touch the ground and as long as it doesn't move... And that is total control?

Its one thing to think that the ball never touched the ground and that is fine for people to say or think that....And if it didn't, it is a catch for sure....But if it even grazed the ground, trapping a ball to to head is not possession in the nfl...  





 

[ATHEIST]

Your right nobody on the networks will bring it up at all...Not one person...Not one person will even ask the question of whether the ball touched the ground...Not one person will even try to explain why it would be a catch if it hit the ground...

Fact is you were in the kitchen all night drinking wine with the wifes of the real football fans while the game was going on...Remember your the one who said Shockey didn't even show up at the "SB"...The only time you came out from the kitchen was to watch the commericals...That is what you do...

hmm where did i say that about Shockey exactly? can you find that post of mine?

    and i find it funny that after coming to the realization that you are in fact ridiculously wrong, you feel the need to resort to childish comments and a change of subject. yes i do enjoy a good glass of wine, as opposed to the beer helmet you prefer
 
  and i'll wait for you to find me that post of mine, and dont get so desperate as to say "i went back and changed it" after you again realize that you made a foolish mistake.

[body88]

I'm not going to whine about "the catch". It was a catch. The pats had a bunch of chances to put the game away. Samuel , Harrison and Meriweather all dropped game ending int's.

The pats deserved to lose. They played flat , uninspired football.

The  g men played better. They played like champions. The pats O line should all give there game checks back.  Belichick and Mcdaniels did not ccoach a good game , and several pats players looked like they where sleep walking.



















You seem to really know your shit when it comes to football...Lets put "that catch" a side and answer me this...

Are you saying that in ANY NFL football game a ball can touch the ground even if its not pulled into the body and or the hands are not under the ball? And are you saying that a player can hold the ball against the  top of his head and as he falls to the ground and the ball can touch the ground and as long as it doesn't move... And that is total control?

Its one thing to think that the ball never touched the ground and that is fine for people to say or think that....And if it didn't, it is a catch for sure....But if it even grazed the ground, trapping a ball to to head is not possession in the nfl...  





 

I see what you are saying. For me it is water under the bridge. We lost that game in so many ways. I see the point you are making though.

[tu_holmes]

Its one thing to think that the ball never touched the ground and that is fine for people to say or think that....And if it didn't, it is a catch for sure....But if it even grazed the ground, trapping a ball to to head is not possession in the nfl...  

It looked to me that he had both hands controlling the ball before the "graze" would have occurred... That's what I saw anyway.

It was still too close to notice if the ball did graze as there wasn't a good camera angle to say it did or didn't... You have to go with the receiver in that instance.

*edit*

In looking at it about 4 times on youtube just now... I'm going to have to say it didn't appear to touch the ground... It didn't create a grass indentation or anything.

I do think it came close to touching the ground, but I do not think it actually did.

[Spoony Luv]

Yes it is a moot point. i just find it curious that Spoony would be so desperate enough to consider it a factor when it never was.
 
i am by no means rubbing it in the face of Pats fans, they could have easily won the game and by no means is it the end of their dynasty,or even close to it.

 

thats the whole thing here...Of course its a moot point...I'm just questioning a play...I don't give to shits about the outcome...If it were the pats that had a catch like that happen, i would say the same thing...

But nobody wants to fucking talk about it...Any fan who has watched a few hundred games over the past couple years has seen over and over and over their team be called for an incomplete pass when a reciever had what looks like total control over the ball but the ball touches the ground....This happens all the time when a receiver has to reach forward for a catch and as he goes to the ground, if he doesn't pull the ball into his body or cup the ball from underneath and it touches the ground, it has always be ruled an incomplete pass....

That is all I'm saying here...The strangest thing here is no one on the networks will even talk about the rule...When the play went down, they kept showing replay after replay and the Homo's broadcasting the game would not even ask the question of does he have possession....

As a fan of the game, that alone was fucked up...again if you weren't sipping wine threw a straw in the kitchen, and you were actually a fan of the game itself, you may want to atleast have it explained to you...But like usual were in the kitchen trying to flirt with someone else's wife...

 

[ATHEIST]

Your right nobody on the networks will bring it up at all...Not one person...Not one person will even ask the question of whether the ball touched the ground...Not one person will even try to explain why it would be a catch if it hit the ground...

Fact is you were in the kitchen all night drinking wine with the wifes of the real football fans while the game was going on...Remember your the one who said Shockey didn't even show up at the "SB"...The only time you came out from the kitchen was to watch the commericals...That is what you do...

  um moron try reading my post in the context of the discusion. by "he wasnt there in the playoffs of the SB"  i meant there playing with the team...you are a true moron.  reading and comprehension isnt your best attribute i see.

[Spoony Luv]

I see what you are saying. For me it is water under the bridge. We lost that game in so many ways. I see the point you are making though.

but that is what i'm talking about...Its not about who won or lost the game...Obviously when someone brings up something it looks like sour grapes(i truly don't give a shit about the game) my question is why won't anyone even bring this stuff up? Will it really tarnish the "great catch"...Its like everyone is trying so hard to protect "that catch"...That sucks to me...It was a great catch for sure...One of the best games to watch...But when no one will even bring up the obvious, its just fucking weird to me...

[ATHEIST]

thats the whole thing here...Of course its a moot point...I'm just questioning a play...I don't give to shits about the outcome...If it were the pats that had a catch like that happen, i would say the same thing...

But nobody wants to fucking talk about it...Any fan who has watched a few hundred games over the past couple years has seen over and over and over their team be called for an incomplete pass when a reciever had what looks like total control over the ball but the ball touches the ground....This happens all the time when a receiver has to reach forward for a catch and as he goes to the ground, if he doesn't pull the ball into his body or cup the ball from underneath and it touches the ground, it has always be ruled an incomplete pass....

That is all I'm saying here...The strangest thing here is no one on the networks will even talk about the rule...When the play went down, they kept showing replay after replay and the Homo's broadcasting the game would not even ask the question of does he have possession....

As a fan of the game, that alone was fucked up...again if you weren't sipping wine threw a straw in the kitchen, and you were actually a fan of the game itself, you may want to atleast have it explained to you...But like usual were in the kitchen trying to flirt with someone else's wife...

 

 ha ha! hike up your skirt and quite your bitching already. it was a non factor, what more do you need.

[Spoony Luv]

 um moron try reading my post in the context of the discusion. by "he wasnt there in the playoffs of the SB"  i meant there playing with the team...you are a true moron.  reading and comprehension isnt your best attribute i see.

you view a 3 hr. game out of context so whats your point...Your reality tunnel is much like all the other sheep in the world....Atheist(how original)...Look everyone, i don't believe in a god but do believe in almost everything my reality tunnel is showing me

[ATHEIST]

you view a 3 hr. game out of context so whats your point...Your reality tunnel is much like all the other sheep in the world....Atheist(how original)...Look everyone, i don't believe in a god but do believe in almost everything my reality tunnel is showing me

my point is that you mis-read my text by not reading it in the context of the discusion and again made yourself look foolish.
how did i view a three game out of context? becuase i dont think they should have reviewed the catch? great so you know more than the league officials now.

[Hugo Chavez]

looks like a good catch to me.