daquixers_is_back Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Did he make a football move after he had the ball? 568450[/snapback] He made about 3 of them ... holy crapola
puppet Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 So if he lies there on the ground with the ball it's an interception ... but if he tries to get up and do something with it then it's not? Does that make ANY sense? Total bull sh--!
Fezmid Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, it's a rule called the "we've been pimping Peyton Manning for years, we've got to get him to the Super Bowl THIS YEAR" rule. 568454[/snapback] Then again I'll ask, why didn't they call false start on the Steelers on 4th and 1?
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Did he make a football move after he had the ball? Fell to the ground, landed hard on the ground, and started to get up. Three football moves.
Kgun5 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 So if he lies there on the ground with the ball it's an interception ... but if he tries to get up and do something with it then it's not? Does that make ANY sense? Total bull sh--! 568456[/snapback] Exactly...What "memo" is going to explain this joke?
syhuang Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Seriously - is there a rule we dont know? 568429[/snapback] The great Peyton Manning needs to have at least one superbowl ring, so he can be the greatest QB ever.
YOOOOOO Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, it's a rule called the "we've been pimping Peyton Manning for years, we've got to get him to the Super Bowl THIS YEAR" rule. 568454[/snapback] Of Course the rule was voted on and changed this off season.....it use to read: "we've been pimping Tom Brady all year, we've got to get him to the Super Bowl THIS YEAR" rule.
BillsGuyInMalta Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 I'm hoping the Steelers just bleed out the rest of this clock...kick the Colts right in the face.
Corp000085 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Then again I'll ask, why didn't they call false start on the Steelers on 4th and 1? 568458[/snapback] the refs are hungover... They are all employees of the Jim Kelly for NY Governor campaign.
Kgun5 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Then again I'll ask, why didn't they call false start on the Steelers on 4th and 1? 568458[/snapback] I'll answer that...THEY DIDN'T SEE IT! There's no excuse for not seeing that play as an INT.
mcjeff215 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 I'm hoping the Steelers just bleed out the rest of this clock...kick the Colts right in the face. 568464[/snapback] So much for that.
The Dean Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Exactly...What "memo" is going to explain this joke? 568461[/snapback] They'll dust off the "tuck rule" memo and edit in some of the memo from the Dallas-Sabres "no goal" game. The offieicating has been horrible...but, both ways, IMO.
Thailog80 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, it's a rule called the "we've been pimping Peyton Manning for years, we've got to get him to the Super Bowl THIS YEAR" rule. 568454[/snapback] This from a Pats fan?
puppet Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 If this were the Bills instead of the Steelers and that happened I would be out of my mind. As it is - I think it's a ridiculous call. Especially when they overruled the call on the field. Unreal!
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Posted January 15, 2006 So if he lies there on the ground with the ball it's an interception ... but if he tries to get up and do something with it then it's not? Does that make ANY sense? Total bull sh--! 568456[/snapback] exactly......what a laugh
daquixers_is_back Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Then again I'll ask, why didn't they call false start on the Steelers on 4th and 1? 568458[/snapback] That is true ... The Colts did get screwed there.
Schulman16 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Its technically not a pick. It's a terrible rule interpreted correctly. Why you ask? Because in order to make a catch, you have to maintain possession to the ground. Polamalu was technically going "to the ground" since the ball came out when his knee was down--hence it was incomplete when the ball came out. Its like the tuck rule. If polamalu just stayed down it would have been fine.
Marv Levy Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Bill's gonna crap cowher turds after this film review!! "AMAZING MISSED CALL BATMAN!"
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Posted January 15, 2006 Its technically not a pick. It's a terrible rule interpreted correctly. Why you ask? Because in order to make a catch, you have to maintain possession to the ground. Polamalu was technically going "to the ground" since the ball came out when his knee was down--hence it was incomplete when the ball came out. Its like the tuck rule. If polamalu just stayed down it would have been fine. 568486[/snapback] Your explanation makes absolutely no sense..sorry
Recommended Posts