October 07, 2003

Colts Rally for Overtime Win,: coming back from a 21-0 halftime deficit against the Buccaneers' #1 defense. The Colts scored 28 points in the fourth quarter. (ESPN box score)

posted by kirkaracha to football at 12:10 AM - 27 comments

I watched part of the first half, saw the score, and thought it'd be another Monday Night Football snoozer. "That's what they all say...they all say 'D'oh'."

posted by kirkaracha at 12:25 AM on October 07, 2003

Wooh-wooh!!! Lots of yelling around the complex tonight. I dunno if it rivals the Miracle in the Meadowlands, but it has to be close. The look on poor Sapp's face was priceless. Average allowed ppg by Bucs D: 7.3 Points scored by Colts over bucs: 38

posted by ttrendel at 12:30 AM on October 07, 2003

The real topic of discussion here... the leaping call at the end. What the hell was that? And what's with these weird BS rules that pop up once in a while (*coughpatriots/raiderscough*)? Sure, I'm a bit bitter because I lost my fantasy game by one point (I needed 4 more receiving yards from Harrison, or a FG by Gramatica), but isn't the incredible comeback a little tainted by the ending being decided on a ridiculous flag?

posted by swank6 at 12:32 AM on October 07, 2003

I was going to mention the leaping call, but I couldn't find the actual rule online. From the way the announcers described it, it sounded like the correct call of a dipshit rule (like the Patroits/Raiders call). It's a bummer, but the refs didn't allow 28 points in the 4th quarter. At home.

posted by kirkaracha at 12:44 AM on October 07, 2003

Nope. A win is a win. There were many bad calls against the Colts as well. Bad calls are part of the game. If you don' t like 'em, don't play. I dunno how anyone who has read the NFL rulebook could call the (*coughpatriots/raiderscough*) call a bad one. The refs followed what was in the rulebook perfectly. The only reason that call got so much attention is that most Raiders fans cannot read, and therefore cannot read the NFL rulebook.

posted by ttrendel at 12:45 AM on October 07, 2003

Well, I have to admit it - this is apparently the season Peyton has traded his panties for a jock. I live in southern Indiana, so people around here are going frigging nuts, although not everyone is thrilled. Ken Dilger's family all live within 15 miles of me, and I'm not sure they are too pleased tonight. One bit of good news for me ... the comeback by the Colts makes me 8-5-1 against the spread this week. Bounceback, baby!

posted by wfrazerjr at 01:05 AM on October 07, 2003

ttrendel, I'm not saying the call was a bad one... Like kirkaracha said, it seems they called it perfectly, but the rule is just stupid. Granted, the Bucs blew it on their own, there's no question about that... but the weird call at the end provides a convenient way to take away some of the Colts' well-deserved merit.

posted by swank6 at 01:32 AM on October 07, 2003

All Colts fans are happy for the win and Dilger still had a decent night. That's as good as it gets. I think most Colts fans have a soft spot for him. He was a bright spot on the team when there weren't many others and he always seemed like such an approachable guy. I can't say that making him available was a bad call, but he was such a likeable guy. I never knew he was somehat local, though. Good info.

posted by ttrendel at 01:39 AM on October 07, 2003

ttrendel, re-read what kirkaracha wrote: "The correct call of a dipshit rule." Raiders Colts fans cannot read... The NFL should have done some serious housecleaning on the rulebook after the Patriots/Raiders game. Once again, an incredible game is tainted by a stupid rule.

posted by dusted at 01:42 AM on October 07, 2003

"The correct call of a dipshit rule." Dipshit rule or not, a rule is a rule. Without rules the game is nonexistent. If I'm getting paid 2 million a year to play a game, I'd make pretty damn sure that I know the fucking rules.

posted by ttrendel at 01:49 AM on October 07, 2003

Just because a rule exists in the rulebook doesn't mean it's good or permanent. It's intellectually lazy to defend it by saying "a rule is a rule," without examining its merits. The ref called a penalty on a silly rule on the deciding play in overtime, and that ruined the game for me. And I don't give a crap about either team! I'd forgive Simeon Rice for not knowing that rule. Al Michaels and John Madden didn't know why there was a penalty after watching the replay, and between them they have, what, half a century of football knowledge?

posted by dusted at 03:17 AM on October 07, 2003

Who's suggesting the rule should be permanent? All that matters is that it was on the books when Simeon Rice was called for breaking it. Here's how one story describes the rule: "The penalty -- unsportsmanlike conduct -- was called because it's illegal for a player to start more than 1 yard from the line of scrimmage, run forward and land on players instead of the ground." That makes some sense -- a player doing a Lambeau leap across the line could cause injuries to other players. I'm guessing it was probably instituted after such a play resulted in an injury. Rice says he didn't commit the foul, but for the Bucs to whine about a ticky-tack call after leading 28-7 with 13 minutes left in the game is bogus. They're tempting the football gods this year with stuff like this and the TD passes to Warren Sapp in garbage time. I don't think we're looking at a Super Bowl repeat this year.

posted by rcade at 06:54 AM on October 07, 2003

My thought's about last night's game: Someone needs to nail Keyshawn Johnson's mouth shut. I am just about tired of him as I am of Kid Rock.

posted by jasonspaceman at 06:58 AM on October 07, 2003

Can someone explain the rule to me please? I watched the replay and I couldn't see what the foul was. Is it illegal to jump over the line? Then how do you block a field goal? What about when the running back is trying to leap over the goal line, are you not allowed to leap at him to stop him from crossing? Was it that he landed on his own teammates on the way down? Did he use his teammates for leverage and propel himself into the air before hand? Seriously, what is the rule infraction? I'm neither a Colts nor Bucs fan, so I really didn't care who won the game. I was just happy that Harrison/Manning came to life to help me win my fantasy football game this week. Whether the Colts got the field goal or not made no difference to me at that point.

posted by grum@work at 07:09 AM on October 07, 2003

I thought this posting was a joke. After my heart palpitations subsided from the Sox game, I went to bed and it was 21-14 with 6:25 left. How did Tampa give this up? I just want Simeon Rice to know that he cost me $100 this week! Although nice to see Dungy get some respect.

posted by usfbull at 07:34 AM on October 07, 2003

That was an incredible game, and the most questionable call was the one where they penalized the Colts for their special teams roughing the kicker, when in fact the kicker might have fallen down anyway. It was ridiculous, gave the Bucs a first down, and almost ended the game.

posted by insomnyuk at 10:01 AM on October 07, 2003

Was it that he landed on his own teammates on the way down? Yep. I think the intent of the rule is to keep players from using their teammates as leverage, but the way it's written (from how the announcers read it), it's a penalty if you land on them. And you're right, linebackers will jump over the defensive linemen on every goal line play. In this particular case, I think making the call is pretty chippy, since (1) his landing on his teammate was on the way down and did not give him a boost in height, and (2) the kick was already on its way. Since it didn't affect the play, it's chippy. That said, the Bucs didn't lose the game because of this play, they lost it because they let it get to this play.

posted by kirkaracha at 10:12 AM on October 07, 2003

It's intellectually lazy to defend it by saying "a rule is a rule," without examining its merits.
Thats what the offseason is for.

posted by lilnemo at 11:44 AM on October 07, 2003

Al Michaels and John Madden ... have, what, half a century of football knowledge... Well, since Madden started playing football about 50 years ago, you're not giving Michaels much credit, dusted.

posted by billsaysthis at 01:36 PM on October 07, 2003


posted by lilnemo at 02:02 PM on October 07, 2003

Well, I have to admit it - this is apparently the season Peyton has traded his panties for a jock. You know, I never bought all the bullshit about "Peyton Manning can't win the big games." QBs get too much credit when a team wins, and too much blame when a team loses. Let's examine the Colts' history while Peyton played for them. His first four years resulted in two playoff appearances under Jim Mora, the man who has still never won a playoff game in the NFL, despite being one franchise's all-time leader in victories, and despite taking that team (the Saints) to their first four playoff berths. For whatever reason, Mora is 0-6 now in the playoffs; it seems he's probably just a crappy playoff coach. Last year was Tony Dungy's first in Indianapolis. The Colts lost 41-0 to the Jets in the opening round of the playoffs. Somehow, I don't think a score of 41-0 can be blamed on one player. (If they'd lost 6-0 and Manning threw four or five interceptions, that would be one thing.) He didn't have a good game by any means, but more than any other sport, football is a team game. for the Bucs to whine about a ticky-tack call after leading 28-7 with 13 minutes left in the game is bogus. Or for them to be leading 35-14 with under four minutes left. I mean, really. "Defense for the ages" my ass.

posted by nath at 06:56 PM on October 07, 2003

nath, you better watch what you say or Simeon Rice and Keyshawn are gonna find you and whup your ass. Dissing their defense for the ages and all.

posted by billsaysthis at 07:39 PM on October 07, 2003

I have a simple way for you to dispel the Peyton myth, nath. Before this season, pick out one big game in which he played exceedingly well, well enough to lift his team over a better opponent. Show me the big game he won. I'm quite aware football is a team game, and yes, the quarterback often either gets too much or too little of the appropriate emotion. But tell me Brett Favre doesn't win the big ones? Tell me Montana didn't? We're talking about a stinkin' #1 overall. Is it enough that he's not Jeff George? And before you pull out the "but look at the team around them!" card, consider the Colts. Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, a solid offensive line, good #2 and #3 receivers ... they put up points like crazy in the regular season. What happens in the postseason? You can't blame it all on Peyton, I agree ... but until this season, he sure hasn't helped matters, and it ain't the playoffs yet. Hell, even Len Pasquarelli can't make up his damned mind. He talks about Manning's inability to get into the end zone in crucial situations, then says his critics are misguided.

posted by wfrazerjr at 07:57 PM on October 07, 2003

No one seems to like quarterbacks any more. If Donovan McNabb is overrated and Peyton Manning is a myth and Brett Favre is all-but-over and Kurt Warner is benched and Michael Vick is unproven, who at this point would be universally accepted as a great quarterback?

posted by rcade at 09:09 PM on October 07, 2003

Hmm, hard to say. Maybe Steve McNair is the best current candidate? Even though they lost yesterday...

posted by swank6 at 09:50 PM on October 07, 2003

Here's the magic bullet I say a QB has finally made it and lthey fall apart the next week. Check my columns. Thus, Peyton will leave a load in the red zone several times next week.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:56 PM on October 07, 2003

For anyone still wondering about the "leaping" call, here's something to clear it up. Sorta.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:54 PM on October 07, 2003

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.