clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Yahoo! Sports Dan Wetzel is a whiny cry baby

Seriously Dan? I mean, seriously?

The worst call of the final 2:08 of the Indianapolis Colts’ 35-34 victory over the New England Patriots on Sunday wasn’t made by Bill Belichick.

It came courtesy of head linesman Tom Stabile, who on the now-infamous fourth-and-2 attempt, ruled Patriots running back Kevin Faulk(notes) was juggling the pass until he landed on his back inside the 30-yard line.

Replays show Faulk had jumped in the air and initially batted the ball up. Stabile could see that. Faulk, however, then cradled it into his chest as he planted one foot on each side of the 30 before being pushed down.

Whether replay would have been conclusive enough to overrule Stabile’s call is unknown. The NFL may claim the call on the field would’ve stood, but who knows what would’ve been determined.

Since Wetzel is too dense to see just how pathetic he looks writing this stupid, seemingly redundant "the refs blew the game" love letter to Bill Belichick, I'll just state the obvious for him and anyone else who thinks along the same lines.

Wetzel is wrong in his replay assessment. Completely, flatly, and blatantly wrong. Tom Brady's pass hit Kevin Faulk in the hands. He was then met hard and driven back by Melvin Bullitt, forcing Faulk to bobble the ball. Bullitt drove Faulk back and by the time Faulk had complete and total possession of the football, he was a yard short. Using the TV "line" is not official. It is where the stick are on the sidelines, and from the vantage point of just about every possible TV angle, Faulk had possession when he was one his back, one yard short. That was the call on the field, and after about a billion replays, that is what we viewers saw.

But even if Faulk did make the first down (he didn't, but let's speculate just so we can make Wetzel look even more ridiculous), the Patriots were unable to challenge the play because Belichick and Brady had blown all of their second half timeouts. Now, what's funny about this is Wetzel acknowledges that:

Since the Patriots had blown their timeouts and the play came just outside the two-minute warning, which would’ve triggered an automatic review, it’s all a moot point.


I mean seriously, you got paid to write this, Dan? Paid actual money?Good grief. The article is nothing more than a hit piece on the refs, but even in that Wetzel falls short, pathetically trying to frame how "hard" it is to call NFL games.

you can't have it both ways, Dan. You are either blasting the refs about the call, which would make you look like the Patriots homer you so obviously seem to be, or the call was right on the field and you dispel any suggestion that the refs spoiled the game for Belichick and the Patriots.

Bottom line: The call was right. Replay backed up the call, and even if it didn't the Patriots couldn't challenge it because they mis-managed the game.

So, in a nutshell, Wetzel's article is just a quick hack piece he "mailed in" without thinking about how stupid it reads.

Dan Wetzel = lazy and overpaid.

[UPDATE]: Apologies to the self-important grammar Nazis for the spell check adding a "r" to Wetzel's name. I'll also add that "bad journalism" isn't poor grammar or a lack of spell checking. That's being "human," especially when your site doesn't have a gaggle of interns or proof readers to double-check that stuff. Bad journalism is getting the story or the facts wrong, which Wretzel... er, Wetzel did.