grammer_police Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Didn't it look like the ball hit the ground, and he just covered it up with this body? It was challenged, and perhaps the replay wasn't conclusive, but when they showed the replay I actually thought it had a decent chance of being overturned. Anyone else notice this?
grammer_police Posted September 18, 2009 Author Posted September 18, 2009 Didn't it look like the ball hit the ground, and he just covered it up with this body? It was challenged, and perhaps the replay wasn't conclusive, but when they showed the replay I actually thought it had a decent chance of being overturned. Anyone else notice this? Yeah I did notice that. Mabey if we petition the Roger Goodell, he'll just "give it to us" and we will be the win!
MRW Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Didn't it look like the ball hit the ground, and he just covered it up with this body? It was challenged, and perhaps the replay wasn't conclusive, but when they showed the replay I actually thought it had a decent chance of being overturned. Anyone else notice this? The ball did hit the ground, but that doesn't make it incomplete ever since the rules were changed after the Tampa Bay/St. Louis NFC Championship game about 10 years ago. He kept complete control of the ball all the way to the ground and didn't trap it, so it was a catch.
grammer_police Posted September 18, 2009 Author Posted September 18, 2009 Yeah I did notice that.Mabey if we petition the Roger Goodell, he'll just "give it to us" and we will be the win! Sorry, my grammer was really bad there. really drunk, and re-watching the game. Why do I do this to myself?
grammer_police Posted September 18, 2009 Author Posted September 18, 2009 The ball did hit the ground, but that doesn't make it incomplete ever since the rules were changed after the Tampa Bay/St. Louis NFC Championship game about 10 years ago. He kept complete control of the ball all the way to the ground and didn't trap it, so it was a catch. Good point. Still hurts though.
rackemrack Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Yeah I did notice that.Mabey if we petition the Roger Goodell, he'll just "give it to us" and we will be the win! do you always respond to your own questions?
grammer_police Posted September 18, 2009 Author Posted September 18, 2009 do you always respond to your own questions? Sorry, I forgot that I was the one that started the thread.
Numark Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Sorry, I forgot that I was the one that started the thread. you forgot after 1 minute. creepy little thread you got going here though
SDS Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 you forgot after 1 minute. creepy little thread you got going here though yeah, it's a little weird. Short term memory issues?
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The Ben Watson "completion" looked eerily similar to the Oakland non-completion for a TD. IN fact , the officiating crew sited the same rule, but came to 2 different conclusions. Explain that one to me.
EndZoneCrew Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Sorry, I forgot that I was the one that started the thread. Mr. Short Term Memory
grammer_police Posted September 18, 2009 Author Posted September 18, 2009 Mr. Short Term Memory I need to stop, you know, well that thing that Beast Mode is probably doing right now.
wonderbread Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 you forgot after 1 minute. creepy little thread you got going here though
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 do you always respond to your own questions? It would have been funnier if he disagreed with himself.
cmjoyce113 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The difference was that Watson didn't bobble the ball and the receiver in the Oakland game did. That is what made that not a catch.
MRW Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The difference was that Watson didn't bobble the ball and the receiver in the Oakland game did. That is what made that not a catch. Yep, I never even saw the ball move at all once Watson had it. It was really an excellent catch, as much as I hate to admit it.
gmac17 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 great throw, great catch and a good call. this one, not so much. http://touchdown.org/new-england-patriots/...-first-down.php
Guava Kai Buffalo Soljahs Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 great throw, great catch and a good call. this one, not so much. http://touchdown.org/new-england-patriots/...-first-down.php I hadn't seen that screen shot yet but I felt like they were giving the patriots really good spots all game. It sucks when it feels like even the refs are against us
sharper802 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Didn't it look like the ball hit the ground, and he just covered it up with this body? It was challenged, and perhaps the replay wasn't conclusive, but when they showed the replay I actually thought it had a decent chance of being overturned. Anyone else notice this? Try everyone watching the game since it was reviewed and shown over and over again. He had control of the ball. The ball is allowed to touch the ground as long as you have possesion first or simultaneoulsy. It dates back to the Tampa Bay St. Louis Rams playoff game.
MDH Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 you forgot after 1 minute. creepy little thread you got going here though He forgot to sign out and sign back in with a different account - which is still kind of sad.
Recommended Posts