The crowd might have reacted to the same thing Nantz did, which I suggested may have been an official entering the replay booth. They might have even taken that to mean that Belichick challenged (not knowing/remembering the rules), as Nantz did. I'm willing to listen to any argument. It just seems very unlikely to me that the NFL is blatantly lying when there might have been literally thousands of eye witnesses to dispute their lie. The fact that we are also not hearing from any of those potential witness also seems telling. It really wouldn't be worth it for the league to cover this up either. Sure people would be mildly upset with a missed 15 yard penalty that may or may not have affected the outcome. But it wouldn't be anything that they haven't been through dozens of times before. The league has made mistakes that they have fessed up to, and everyone understands that they are a part of the game.
You don't know the rules. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8536374/the-patriots-flawed-other-week-7-news Let's go back to the final play of that Jets-Patriots game, because it shouldn't have been the final play at all. Mark Sanchez is sacked on his dropback and certainly fumbles the ball backward, a decision that was reviewed by the notably incompetent Jeff Triplette and confirmed before the game was officially brought to a halt. What the referees didn't call at the time, though (and couldn't overturn on review), was a personal-foul penalty that should have kept the game going. The initial contact with Sanchez is made by Jermaine Cunningham (no. 96), who falls down at the line of scrimmage in front of Sanchez and crawls at Sanchez before diving at his ankles and knocking him down. Patriots fans will undoubtedly remember what I'm referring to: the Brady Rule. After Brady's infamous injury at the hands of Bernard Pollard ended his 2008 season, the league protected quarterbacks from shots below the knees by players who were downed at their feet. The rule provides an exception for players who were blocked into the quarterback, but Cunningham is clearly no longer blocked when he crawls after Sanchez for several steps. The rule also notes that defenders are allowed to "swipe" at the quarterback, but Cunningham forcibly tries to take down Sanchez (somewhat successfully) by his ankles. That's a 15-yard penalty, one that should have extended the Jets' drive and the overtime session. A missed call is one thing, but the league seems to be unofficially abandoning any enforcement of the Brady Rule. Only an hour earlier, I saw the Raiders take down Chad Henne with an even clearer Brady Rule hit. And several weeks ago, during the reign of replacement-referee terror, a Raiders player hit Ben Roethlisberger from the side with a diving shot into his ankle that left Roethlisberger visibly limping for the rest of the series. Neither of those plays was called, and neither of the hits today even merited as much as a mention from the announcers in its respective game. We all know how this ends. If the Brady Rule isn't enforced, the league is going to see defenders diving at the ankles of quarterbacks for sacks until somebody gets seriously hurt. Then there's going to be an outcry to protect the league's quarterbacks, James Harrison will say something outlandish, and we'll be having this whole debate all over again. Let's not require somebody to undergo reconstructive surgery before that happens. The Brady Rule is on the books. It might have cost the Jets a win on Sunday, but even that is less important than keeping the league's stars healthy. It's a rule that needs to be enforced.
The problem is that Grantland, like many uninformed fans, seems to assume that any time a defensive players tackles a QB below the knees it qualifies as "the Brady Rule". Have you actually read the official wording of the rule, and have you actually watched replays of the tackle? I'd like to refer you to this (http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=2624081&postcount=135) post that I made if you haven't done both of those things.
You're a little late to the party: http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=2622052&postcount=65
He's right and a similar situation came up last weekend. Did anybody ever see BB throw the flag? I know he pulled it out but IDK if he threw it.
Looks like he was right... too bad he was an asshole about the entire thing. All we requested was a link and he had a meltdown.
I shouldn't complain because the Patriots won a huge game via the tuck rule, a correct implementation of a rule even when it looked like a fumble. But the call today in Detroit where an obvious downed ball turns into a touchdown because they can't review the play???? Bad, bad rule. Detroit got robbed big time.
I brought this up after the first Patriots game in this thread, but this rule seems odd to me for this reason: in today's game, if I'm Gary Kubiak, when I see the runner's knee hit the ground, I throw my flag after the touchdown is scored. By rule, wouldn't that make the play non-reviewable? Yeah, the Texans get a 15-yard penalty, but wouldn't it be a dead ball foul after the touchdown? After the Pats game, I said why didn't Rex throw the flag to make the play non-reviewable. That way we'd keep possession even with the 15-yard penalty. Bad rule. Way too big of a punishment for a coach doing something that has become a normal reaction over the years...
