Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 9/28/2020 at 1:41 AM, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Expand  

I stopped reading at “rams player had possession of the ball on the ground”  if you’re gonna make a post about it at least watch the play.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 9/28/2020 at 1:52 AM, Stank_Nasty said:

The NFL has tried to put out an explanation for it. As if it’s remotely justifiable 

Expand  

 

"Oh it's ok to have a skate in the crease if it's not near the goalie, here have a Stanley Cup"

 

This is the level you're operating at, NFL. Think about if that's what you want.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 9/28/2020 at 1:41 AM, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Expand  

Yes, you are. Specifically your explanation for why a Kroft catch is impossible. At no point did he lose possession. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
  On 9/28/2020 at 1:41 AM, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Expand  

simultaneous possession at the very least

Posted
  On 9/28/2020 at 1:41 AM, Tolstoy said:

I thought it was an egregious call as well. Then I asked myself: what is the alternative? Remember that the Rams player had possession of the ball on the ground. So we have three options, maybe 4:

 

(1) Incomplete pass. Impossible. The ball never hit the ground.

(2) Kroft catch. Impossible. He didn't have possession at the end of the play.

(3) Catch and fumble? Impossible. Kroft didn't have possession long enough, and didn't make a "football move," whatever that is.

(4) Interception. As absurd as it is (since the Rams player didn't catch the darn ball), it seems more reasonable than the alternatives!

 

Am I mistaken here? I do prefer to blast the refs, but in this case they may not have had another call they could have made.

Expand  

Just apply the penalty for the receiver's push off... that's what should have been done.  Cancels the catch... still Bill's ball.  LA player got the ball after both players were on the ground.

Posted
  On 9/28/2020 at 2:09 AM, SDS said:

I anticipate the NFL apologizing this week.

Expand  

Nope!

  On 9/28/2020 at 2:14 AM, Not at the table Karlos said:

What did they say?

Expand  

Go to 19:00 and listen to Ryan Talbot talk about it. He mentions that NFL refs tweeted about it and justified it. Absolutely mind numbing that they would stick up for that awful call.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

The reality of it is the league can't afford to have the Bills blow out the LA Rams with the Lakers doing well in the playoffs at the same time.  The NFL is a business.  They pretend to have morals and support things but in the end all they care about is their brand and $$$$

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted

THIS is the headline on E-Sucks-to-be-a-joke-and-a-Bob-Kraft-disciple-PN...

 

They patently ignore the fake interception, and use BS calls to make it seem like the Bills stumbled into a win...

 

The narrative SHOULD be that the National media stumbled into reporting, when it comes to the Bills. They flat out INVENT $#!t to keep their fat, stupid trolls happy about their HOT takes from the 2018 draft...

 

Hope you, National FLEAdia, enjoy the FACT that the MF Buffalo Bills are 3-0, despite your BS narratives, invented calls, and $#!T excuses. 

BS.png

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...