Harbor Posted February 7, 2011 Content Count: 2596 Joined: 02/23/09 Status: Offline Share Posted February 7, 2011 Going to return to title town tommorow, will post pictures. Link to comment
Harbor Posted February 7, 2011 Content Count: 2596 Joined: 02/23/09 Status: Offline Share Posted February 7, 2011 SHITTY FUKIN REFS NOT CALLING THAT BS WON U THE GAME FUKIN NERDS. if you are referring to the last play. BULLSHIT Link to comment
Spiffy Posted February 7, 2011 Content Count: 984 Joined: 08/20/09 Status: Offline Share Posted February 7, 2011 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
SgtJoo Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 2034 Joined: 03/02/10 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 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
Maniac Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 3299 Joined: 04/08/09 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 green n yellow green n yellow green n yellow Lil wayne all I have to say. Packers deserved the win, steelers played like the bills first half but almost made a comeback end game Link to comment
Italian Jew Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 4473 Joined: 11/26/07 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 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". 2 Link to comment
Spiffy Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 984 Joined: 08/20/09 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 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
Harbor Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 2596 Joined: 02/23/09 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 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
Italian Jew Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 4473 Joined: 11/26/07 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) 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. 1 Edited February 8, 2011 by Italian Jew Link to comment
duhoh Posted February 8, 2011 Content Count: 716 Joined: 01/16/10 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2011 them steelers got fudge packer'd Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now