Toledo Bill Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Any explanation heard yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Yes. We thought they had 12 men on the field. We were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Musta counted the ref as a player.... Someone upstairs needs to get his eyes checked.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Dave Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Yes. We thought they had 12 men on the field. We were wrong. 167286[/snapback] I'd like to add to that. Wait...you covered everything. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toledo Bill Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 Any explanation heard yet? 167246[/snapback] Insight like that makes this site invaluable. Thanks for clearing that up for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 well there isnt much to say about it ......I mean, MM got some bad info about there being 12 men on the field so he asked for it to be reviewed ....I mean what else can one say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Dave Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Insight like that makes this site invaluable. Thanks for clearing that up for me... 167315[/snapback] Well...it did cost us a timeout, which one could argue hurt us at the end of the half. We probably would have had to kick a field goal anyway, so it wasn't that big of a deal. It also cost us one of our challenges, but that turned out to be a non-factor. That's about all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toledo Bill Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 Well...it did cost us a timeout, which one could argue hurt us at the end of the half. We probably would have had to kick a field goal anyway, so it wasn't that big of a deal. It also cost us one of our challenges, but that turned out to be a non-factor. That's about all there is to it. 167325[/snapback] Thanks... I thought it was a great challenge (thinking we must have been right). I was sure that we would not have challenged unless we were sure of ourselves ( the challenge even occurred during a time out) and if we were right we would have received a first down. I guess I was questioning if anyone had heard where Mularky got the bad info to challenge. Seems like the kind of error we shouldn't make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Thanks... I thought it was a great challenge (thinking we must have been right). I was sure that we would not have challenged unless we were sure of ourselves ( the challenge even occurred during a time out) and if we were right we would have received a first down. I guess I was questioning if anyone had heard where Mularky got the bad info to challenge. Seems like the kind of error we shouldn't make. 167334[/snapback] I think we had a pic that the special teams folks looked and were sure they saw 12 bungles on field. Problem is reply never showed all players at one time on the ones they showed on the broadcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I'm happy as a pig in sh-- that we won, but that really was an unacceptable challenge... it happened during at TV timeout (I believe)... the guys in the booth know you have to show conclusive evidence... and there's more than one guy... We won 33-17, so I don't really care, but it would be interesting if that was one of the "ask them yourself" questions this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Well both the Bengals and the ref's have stripes on their uniforms.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toledo Bill Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 I think we had a pic that the special teams folks looked and were sure they saw 12 bungles on field. Problem is reply never showed all players at one time on the ones they showed on the broadcast. 167351[/snapback] That would make the most sense. Replay challenges would not include pictures. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 it happened during at TV timeout (I believe)... I don't think they went to a TV timeout until after Mularkey decided to challenge. I wonder if the upstairs review guy for the Bills thought there was 12 because a Bengal broke the huddle late and didn't get off the field 'til just before the snap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts