Jump to content

? servers

? players online

Are you glad the packers won?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you glad the packers won?

    • yes
      21
    • no
      14

PACKERS WIN

Recommended Posts


  • Content Count:  984
  • Joined:  08/20/09
  • Status:  Offline

if you are referring to the last play. BULLSHIT

 

It was pass interference. However, there were plenty of miss calls against the Packers. I still down see how they didn't overturn the incompletion that was clearly a catch and fumble.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  2034
  • Joined:  03/02/10
  • Status:  Offline

It was pass interference. However, there were plenty of miss calls against the Packers. I still down see how they didn't overturn the incompletion that was clearly a catch and fumble.

 

And the oft mentioned "phantom facemask"?

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  4473
  • Joined:  11/26/07
  • Status:  Offline

It was pass interference. However, there were plenty of miss calls against the Packers. I still down see how they didn't overturn the incompletion that was clearly a catch and fumble.

 

 

 

The last play was a good non-call as there was no contact prior to the ball reaching the receiver (as slow motion and commentators pointed out). They thought it was a bad call, but when they showed it in slow motion, they changed their opinions. The only contact of importance was both the receiver and defender's hands, which were both in the same area. It was contested ball and both were playing on it, so no penalty. That's how its supposed to be called.

 

The incompletion was correctly ruled on the field. It was a bang-bang play where the receiver has to maintain control while going to the ground, which the receiver did not. The act of changing your motion to move up field may be considered a "football move" by some, but because the call on the field was incomplete and it was a bang-bang play, there is no way to reverse the decision by replay.

 

The refs did a great job all game except for that "facemask".

  • Like 2
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  984
  • Joined:  08/20/09
  • Status:  Offline

The last play was a good non-call as there was no contact prior to the ball reaching the receiver (as slow motion and commentators pointed out). They thought it was a bad call, but when they showed it in slow motion, they changed their opinions. The only contact of importance was both the receiver and defender's hands, which were both in the same area. It was contested ball and both were playing on it, so no penalty. That's how its supposed to be called.

 

The incompletion was correctly ruled on the field. It was a bang-bang play where the receiver has to maintain control while going to the ground, which the receiver did not. The act of changing your motion to move up field may be considered a "football move" by some, but because the call on the field was incomplete and it was a bang-bang play, there is no way to reverse the decision by replay.

 

The refs did a great job all game except for that "facemask".

 

He took 3 steps with possession of the ball AND turned his body. The third step was taken while the ball is being ripped out but that is not a concern in this instance. With it being a bang-bang play I respect that it may look incomplete but with instant replay showing it definitely was complete there is no excuse.

 

BTW, change your gay text.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  2596
  • Joined:  02/23/09
  • Status:  Offline

I disagree with the last play being called pass interference.

 

Tramon played an amazing game, and that play was perfect, he didn't contact Wallace at all, he got "all ball"

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  4473
  • Joined:  11/26/07
  • Status:  Offline

Incorrect assessment

 

He was going down during the catch. Him taking three steps doesn't matter because he was going down with contact. The rule now is that the receiver must maintain control of the ball if he is being contacted to the ground while catching it. It has been an established rule for a while now.

 

You would even need to prove he had COMPLETE control of the ball to consider your 3 step argument. Show me the clip where he does, and then you might have a chance at being right. From what I saw, there was bobbling throughout the catch, but that was real time.

 

There is nothing there to overturn the call.

 

Go rage at purple things now.

  • Like 1
Edited by Italian Jew
Link to comment

Reply to Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...