Jump to content

**** The OFFICIAL NFC Championship Game Thread****


124

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 327
  • Created
  • Last Reply
When a player is standing out of bounds and the ball touches him, the ball hit out of bounds.

Go read the rulebook.

THAT'S NOT HOW THEY CALLED IT ON THE FIELD!

They said the ball hit out of bounds... not that it hit him while out of bounds... therefore if reviewable they would have seen it did not hit out of bounds and it would have been the wrong call.

There also would not have been conclusive evidence that it hit his forearm and it would have been Cards ball.

Blown call, learn how to watch the NFL.... its not perfect but its how it works buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diagramming Troy Aikman's sentences would take the entire Microsoft Corporation decades. The closed captioning typists must get double time.

Yanno, I never quite understood how some of these old players have broadcasting jobs or analyst jobs. I understand they are greats, but just because they were iconic football players, it doesnt mean they have what it takes to call or a game or be an analyst. Most of them are as dumb as a sack of rocks. Take Emmit Smith for example, the guy was a great running back, but he's so embarassing to listen to. He can't string a grammatically correct sentence together to save his life. It just sh!ts on everyone who went to a 4 year school to get a Journalism degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the ball was out of bounds or the ball hit a player while out of bounds is the same thing. Dead ball and not reviewable either way.

????

They called it out of bounds by the ball hitting out of bounds... which it didn't... there is also no conclusive evidence that it hit his arm while he was out either...

How is it not a blown call? Did the ball hit out of bounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT'S NOT HOW THEY CALLED IT ON THE FIELD!

They said the ball hit out of bounds... not that it hit him while out of bounds... therefore if reviewable they would have seen it did not hit out of bounds and it would have been the wrong call.

There also would not have been conclusive evidence that it hit his forearm and it would have been Cards ball.

Blown call, learn how to watch the NFL.... its not perfect but its how it works buddy.

Do you have Tevo???

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT'S NOT HOW THEY CALLED IT ON THE FIELD!

They said the ball hit out of bounds... not that it hit him while out of bounds... therefore if reviewable they would have seen it did not hit out of bounds and it would have been the wrong call.

There also would not have been conclusive evidence that it hit his forearm and it would have been Cards ball.

Blown call, learn how to watch the NFL.... its not perfect but its how it works buddy.

WHEN A PLAYER IS STANDING OUT OF BOUNDS AND THE BALL TOUCHES HIM THE BALL IS OUT OF BOUNDS YOU MORON!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are lost my friend.

LMFAO.

ECURB is a fool.

You guys do realize if that play was reviewable (which why the hell is it not?) that the Cards have the ball there right?

Keep patting yourselves on the back though, your so smart it hurts my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yanno, I never quite understood how some of these old players have broadcasting jobs or analyst jobs. I understand they are greats, but just because they were iconic football players, it doesnt mean they have what it takes to call or a game or be an analyst. Most of them are as dumb as a sack of rocks. Take Emmit Smith for example, the guy was a great running back, but he's so embarassing to listen to. He can't string a grammatically correct sentence together to save his life. It just sh!ts on everyone who went to 4 years school to get a Journalism degree.

Emmitt is the worst no doubt about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHEN A PLAYER IS STANDING OUT OF BOUNDS AND THE BALL TOUCHES HIM THE BALL IS OUT OF BOUNDS YOU MORON!!!!

That never happened, it was not called, it was nto proven.

They said the ball hit out of bounds, wrong call... end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

????

They called it out of bounds by the ball hitting out of bounds... which it didn't... there is also no conclusive evidence that it hit his arm while he was out either...

How is it not a blown call? Did the ball hit out of bounds?

His foot was out of bounds. At that point, according to NFL rule, his entire body is out of bounds. If the ball touches his dick, it's out of bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His foot was out of bounds. At that point, according to NFL rule, his entire body is out of bounds. If the ball touches his dick, it's out of bounds.

Exactly and who said the ball touched him?

Not the refs, not the booth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have tivo and i did not see it conclusively touch player when his foot

was OB

Even in HD

Not to mention the whole point here is neither did the refs (who called it out of bounds by the ball hitting) and obviously neither did the Cards booth who wanted to review it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, are you blind?

His foot clearly is sliding over the line into out of bounds when the ball bounced up and hit his arm.

Never touched his arm... the ball stayed on the same path and never was deflected by his arm...

Also WHO CARES...

Your using a call that never happened... NOBODY EVER SAID IT HIT HIM WHILE OUT OF BOUNDS>>> IT WASNT THE CALL!

Your making **** up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention the whole point here is neither did the refs (who called it out of bounds by the ball hitting) and obviously neither did the Cards booth who wanted to review it...

Are you ****ing retarded?

BY RULE, WHEN A PLAY STEPS OUT OF BOUNDS, HIS ENTIRE BODY BECOMES OUT OF BOUNDS.

THEREFORE, WHEN THE BALL TOUCHES HIM, IT IS OUT OF BOUNDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you ****ing retarded?

BY RULE, WHEN A PLAY STEPS OUT OF BOUNDS, HIS ENTIRE BODY BECOMES OUT OF BOUNDS.

THEREFORE, WHEN THE BALL TOUCHES HIM, IT IS OUT OF BOUNDS.

Who made that call?

By rule?

By rule Pass INterference results in a 1st down... shall we use that rule here too?

Nobody ever made that call...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO at you idiots arguing, when you're both as wrong as could be.

- The ruling on the field was wrong, in that they claimed the ball touched out-of-bounds, which it clearly did not

- Regardless of that call being wrong, it did appear that the ball hit his arm while he was out-of-bounds, which means that it's a dead ball and Philly's possession; there is no way Arizona gets possession in that case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly and who said the ball touched him?

Not the refs, not the booth...

Obviously the refs called it, the EAGLES KEPT THE BALL!!!

The ref even made an announcement on his mic to explain it...

This is hilarious.

i have tivo and i did not see it conclusively touch player when his foot

was OB

Even in HD

I have HD, tivo and it sure looked like, his foot was out of bounds when the ball bounced up and hit his forearm.

If you want to argue it never touched him, well, it was close, the angle wasnt perfect, from my perspective it surely did, but that can be argued.

The ruling that ECURB is arguing is silly. The rules are the rules and the call was clearly made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never touched his arm... the ball stayed on the same path and never was deflected by his arm...

Also WHO CARES...

Your using a call that never happened... NOBODY EVER SAID IT HIT HIM WHILE OUT OF BOUNDS>>> IT WASNT THE CALL!

Your making **** up

It absolutely touched is ****ing arm!

The ball bounced off of him and changed direction after hitting him, while his foot was clearly out of bounds.

You're the one making **** up.

My dead grandmother saw the ****ing ball hit his arm while his foot was out of bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO at you idiots arguing, when you're both as wrong as could be.

- The ruling on the field was wrong, in that they claimed the ball touched out-of-bounds, which it clearly did not

- Regardless of that call being wrong, it did appear that the ball hit his arm while he was out-of-bounds, which means that it's a dead ball and Philly's possession; there is no way Arizona gets possession in that case

You agree with me almost exactly though... it was a blown call... in which would have easily been overturned if possible because there was not conclusive evidence that it hit his arm while he was out...

My main point... blown call... as it was...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...