Quote Originally Posted by jaydee414 View Post
@mgcolby:
You are correct in that the rules in question, (tuck, below the knees) were in place before any "Brady" incident. However, does it not strike you as odd that UNTIL Tommy Ugg was involved, they rarely got called? How many "tuck rule" and "below the knee" plays were NOT called when the QB was someone OTHER than Tommy Ugg, Big Jen or a Manning?
Do you seriously think the the network$, ( and by exten$ion, the NFL), were NOT $alivating over the pro$pect of Peyton vs. Tommy Ugg? NE, PIT and any team QB'd by a Manning seem to "get" the calls more than not. Coincidence? If you honestly believe so, please pm me regarding a nice bridge I can let you have at a very reasonable price.
1 It is crazy to think that the league had any incentive to aid Brady at that point in his career. What star power did he have? Hell, NE was divided between Brady and Bledsoe. That argument doesn't hold much water. Hell I thought Manning's fumble last week was the Tuck rule and the Refs didn't give it to Manning. And Perreria clarified the rule on the radio the other day, as it turns out the Refs got it right. I also saw the Tuck rule called in a couple of games this year. I do believe one was Big Ben and one was Carson Palmer go figure.

2. Brady is at the bottom of the league in receiving roughing the passer penalties, so again not much to substantiate that argument other than innacurate perception. Tannenhill led the league in receiving RTP penalties. How do you explain that?

3. I think the Networks would kill for a Manning - Brady AFCC game, but nothing that happened last week indicated to me the Refs were favoring Manning and certainly not Brady. In the Pats game every bad call went against us.
- Fumble that wasn't in the Pats game that was clearly stripped, but a ref comes running in way from the back to call foward progress when it was clear the fumble happened during the initial contact while the receiver was still running foward.

About that bridge?