afosomf Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 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 Appear now....WTF is that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 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. Even if you somehow were right... your only proving my point that it was a blown call... the ball did nto hit out of bounds as they called it... and there would not have been clear enough evidence to say it hit his arm... Cards Ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 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... I disagree, in that I think it's fairly apparent that the ball hit his forearm. It should be reviewable, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Can't say for sure if it was a good or bad call. Seemed like he didn't go OOB until after he had touched the ball. What's disgraceful is this "not reviewable" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 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 Johnny, let me explain this to you because you have the brain power to process this information, then you can pass it on to ECURB. By NFL rule, if a player's foot is out of bounds, his entire body is automatically considered out of bounds territory. Therefore, if the ball touches him, it is, in effect touching outs of bounds territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I disagree, in that I think it's fairly apparent that the ball hit his forearm. It should be reviewable, however. If the play was reviewable the Coach would have been able to challenge the fact that the ball hit out... and not the fact that it hit his forearm... Cards ball Also we know they dont overturn a call unless its 110% obvious which this was obviously not... even the announcers werent sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vudu Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Andy Reid is moving really fast. Are there donuts in the locker room? How much do you weigh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 :rl::rl::rl: Director of officials says Im right bitches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Can't say for sure if it was a good or bad call. Seemed like he didn't go OOB until after he had touched the ball. What's disgraceful is this "not reviewable" nonsense. Watching it again right now. His foot was clearly over the line when the ball hit his arm. It was absolutely the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Appear now....WTF is that I think the ball hit his arm. Since they blew the call entirely on the field (saying the ball was out-of-bounds), I don't know how the review would've gone, since they would've then needed to determine if the ball was touched while the player was out-of-bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gun Of Bavaria Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 In the immortal words of the Teepee guys in "Major League"... "Who gives a $hit, it's gone" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 :rl::rl::rl: Director of officials says Im right bitches! and myself LOL Ball was never touched Per the Big Guy..blown call eat my phucking shorts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Johnny, let me explain this to you because you have the brain power to process this information, then you can pass it on to ECURB. By NFL rule, if a player's foot is out of bounds, his entire body is automatically considered out of bounds territory. Therefore, if the ball touches him, it is, in effect touching outs of bounds territory. But it's not clear if the ball hit him before or after he went out. When the ball hit him, he may still ahve been in.ANd the director of officials is telling Fox that the ball itself did not go out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 NFL admitted it was a bad call and a mistake, nice try though guys... you gave it your all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Johnny, let me explain this to you because you have the brain power to process this information, then you can pass it on to ECURB. By NFL rule, if a player's foot is out of bounds, his entire body is automatically considered out of bounds territory. Therefore, if the ball touches him, it is, in effect touching outs of bounds territory. I've stated several times that I think the result of the play was correct. However, the officials came to that decision incorrectly, by stating: "The kick touched the receiving player and then touched out-of-bounds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 and myself LOL Ball was never touched Per the Big Guy..blown call eat my phucking shorts Oh yeah you too, good job fighting the good fight afo! Here is a victory beer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 But it's not clear if the ball hit him before or after he went out. When the ball hit him, he may still ahve been in.ANd the director of officials is telling Fox that the ball itself did not go out. Actually it did. Just watched it again five times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vudu Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 NFL admitted it was a bad call and a mistake, nice try though guys... you gave it your all! you've earned it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I've stated several times that I think the result of the play was correct. However, the officials came to that decision incorrectly, by stating: "The kick touched the receiving player and then touched out-of-bounds." Nope Perrara said ball did not touch the iggle when foot was OB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Oh yeah you too, good job fighting the good fight afo! Here is a victory beer! They said the explanation was wrong. Is that what you have been arguing this whole time??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Actually it did. Just watched it again five times. get a better TV dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Nope Perrara said ball did not touch the iggle when foot was OB Where did you see/hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 They said the explanation was wrong. Is that what you have been arguing this whole time??? Now your just making **** up. That is not at all what they said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 But it's not clear if the ball hit him before or after he went out. When the ball hit him, he may still ahve been in.ANd the director of officials is telling Fox that the ball itself did not go out. The problem for the officials if they have to review the play is that once they determine that the ball did not go out-of-bounds, they then need to determine if the ball hit the player on the receiving team while he was out-of-bounds. Since there was no call made on the field with respect to that, there is nothing to overturn... it's a completely new decision that is being made, so how do you determine if it is conclusive or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Where did you see/hear that? they said on halftime show you got a beer instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 get a better TV dude Give him a break... tough economy... I can see why on his TV everything seemed to be touching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Now your just making **** up. That is not at all what they said. Yes they did. The Ref said the ball touched out of bounds, which was wrong, because it "supposedly" touched the player while HE was out of bounds. Which from my perspective, thats exactly what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The problem for the officials if they have to review the play is that once they determine that the ball did not go out-of-bounds, they then need to determine if the ball hit the player on the receiving team while he was out-of-bounds. Since there was no call made on the field with respect to that, there is nothing to overturn... it's a completely new decision that is being made, so how do you determine if it is conclusive or not?When they first had replay, the excuse they would use not to review was "after the whistle". Seems like "not reviewable" is the new "after the whistle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yes they did. The Ref said the ball touched out of bounds, which was wrong, because it "supposedly" touched the player while HE was out of bounds. Which from my perspective, thats exactly what happened. That is not what they said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00tonytone Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 mcnab 1-5 in championship games, not to shabby. Its better then K Obrien, R. Todd, Boomer, B. Nagle, Chad Pennington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 mcnab 1-5 in championship games, not to shabby. Its better then K Obrien, R. Todd, Boomer, B. Nagle, Chad Pennington. Mcnabb is throwing the ball awful today.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 That is not what they said. enuff with them Perrara said it was a blown call, and he doesn't say it often Perrara said it did not go OB and was not touched while playa OB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 they said on halftime show you got a beer instead Im watching it again right now... He said, "Near the end of the first half, you had that play where the ball was ruled to be kicked out of bounds by the ref.....The talked to Perrara and he said that was the wrong call, the ball never went out of bounds.. BUT, they did have the correct judgement on the replay. It was the right application of the rule, but probably the wrong call to begin with." What you and ECURB are not following, is that they the explination of what happened was wrong. He didnt explain that it hit his forearm while he was standing out of bounds. Its that simple. FTR, They never said anything about Perrara and the ball touching the player, just that the ball never went out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vudu Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Philly is sh!tting the bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.