For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Chris FountainQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
nellcote'71
As long as Dallas goes down i don't care what happens.
Agree. Why they are called Americas team is beyond me. I don't know of anybody that likes Dallas.
For some reason people that live in north Louisiana are Cowgirls fans. So that means:
1. north Louisiana became Texas and no one told Louisiana
2. people that live in north Louisiana are pathetic
3. people that live in north Louisiana are pathetic
4. north Louisiana is boring anyway so it makes sense they like the Cowgirls
Can I include the Chicago but holes? those folks are really a mob !
Quote
Chris FountainQuote
crholmstrom
The game was about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. My ears are still ringing. Doubleheader today nice way to recover. Waiting for next Sunday...
Passion for game was incredible. Carolina is a fiesty team that deserves credit!!
Quote
ChefGuevara
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
Quote
keefriffhard4life
the football gods just got even with dallas
Quote
crholmstrom
We are ready for some fondue up here. The cheeseheads are going to find tickets a little tougher to get this time. Should be a good match up (Seattle D vs GB O). Rumor is that it will be a noon start which is unusual up here. Usually the games start at 1:00 or 1:30. We will have to get more serious about the coffee for a Sunday!
Quote
dmay
Hey Slew, where y'all get off callin' the Ravens thugs? Dem's fightin' words where I come from, dude. :-)
Quote
Chris Fountain
The Wolfpack Nation celebrates an ass kicking on Duke. They really needed it.[/quote
I figured Duke was in trouble when they called a goaltend that wasn't and kept saying everything Duke did was an offensive foul
Quote
GasLightStreet
It's probably safe to say New England will beat Indy. Green Bay vs Seattle... I dunno. Probably Seattle. It would be convenient to say it depends on Rodgers' health but that might not matter.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
GasLightStreet
It's probably safe to say New England will beat Indy. Green Bay vs Seattle... I dunno. Probably Seattle. It would be convenient to say it depends on Rodgers' health but that might not matter.
I disagree with it probably being Seattle, and I'm saying that as someone rooting for Seattle next week. The Packers have been great this whole season, and not that I think it'll be a blowout, but I think the Seahawks have to play really hard to get the win next week. I'm certainly hoping they do, but Wilson's been rather inconsistent this season (at least not the reason for most wins), Lynch's back is basically paper machete at this point. To me, Seattle this year has been very good, but are at this point very beaten down. They seem tired to me, whereas Green Bay has been getting better or just stayed consistently great all season.
I'm pulling for a Seattle win next week, but I think for it to happen Seattle has to come in healthy and ready to fight. Cause Green Bay has been the team to beat this year.
I too would say its safe to say the Pats will probably win next week. I think the Colts will put up a decent match though. It'll be the ultimate test of how far Luck can push this team.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
ChefGuevara
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
I think the rules and the replay are pretty clear, the ground can cause an incomplete pass, probably a good call, but certainly a fine line. Great effort by the receiver though.
It wouldn't have been a TD anyway since the ball touched on the one foot line.
peace
Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
NaturalustQuote
ChefGuevara
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
I think the rules and the replay are pretty clear, the ground can cause an incomplete pass, probably a good call, but certainly a fine line. Great effort by the receiver though.
It wouldn't have been a TD anyway since the ball touched on the one foot line.
peace
The rules state that it is not an incomplete pass if the receiver makes a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball with 2 feet on the ground.
That's the issue there. They say that the receiver did not make a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball and getting two feet down.
I don't agree. He went to stretch the ball out towards the goal line. That,right there,should have been the "football move common to the game".
Here's their official explanation :
QUOTE " That ruling, although the receiver is possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football through the entire process of the catch, So, in our judgment, he maintained possession, but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. "
" So, we deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as the ball hits the ground, which would make that incomplete. Although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches. " END QUOTE
So,they admit that the receiver was possessing the football,eveyone knows that he had at least 2 feet down while doing so BUT,they won't admit that he made " another act common to the game " . Yet,they describe him reaching with the ball by the end of their description.
How is reaching for the end zone with the ball not an " act common to the game " ??????????
By the way,they would have had a very good chance to score a touchdown with FOUR chances from 1 foot ( roughly a third of a meter ) away. Much better chances than Detroit would have had during the situation in the previous game .... with the missed illegal hands to the face penalty on Detroit not withstanding.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Sure,falling down doesn't constitute a football move but,like you say,the football move was reaching the ball out.
I guess where we disagree is that I believe that the ball hit the ground AFTER he reached it out. In other words,a still shot should show him reaching the ball out in the air a fraction of a second BEFORE the ball hit the ground.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
I just don't agree. I think that once he reached the ball out,the football move had been made and therefore possession was,or should have been established.
The head of officiating even went as far as to say that had he reached out further with the ball OR with 2 hands on the ball,they would have or should have ruled it the other way. However,there is no such language in the rule book which specifically requires either of his two conditions or that a short reach with 1 hand is not enough.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Winning Ugly VXII
I just don't agree. I think that once he reached the ball out,the football move had been made and therefore possession was,or should have been established.
The head of officiating even went as far as to say that had he reached out further with the ball OR with 2 hands on the ball,they would have or should have ruled it the other way. However,there is no such language in the rule book which specifically requires either of his two conditions or that a short reach with 1 hand is not enough.
Yes I saw the move toward the goal with the ball, you might be right on this one. The effort he made to retain possession after the ball got loose was also great. I'm now thoroughly unconvinced about it.
The "if he had reached out further" part is particularly troubling. How much further does he have to reach except to the goal line?
But, if he is reaching during the process of the catch/fall it seems to be nullified since the process wasn't complete.
peace
Quote
Chris Fountain
The Pack kicked Duke's Ass fair and square. if officiating is a concern, look how many teams have been screwed in Cameron.