2008 Week 13 / 14 / 15

[Eagles_Legendz]

i wouldn't have a problem with it being a TD if that's what was called on the field, but the whole purpose of instant replay is that they can reverse a call if there is absolute conclusive evidence on film.  with as many people as there are today still complaining about it, it obviously was not conclusive.  defeats the whole purpose of the system. 

and yeah why the hell was the ref even talking about the guys feet?  there was some dumb steelers fan girl at my house yelling about how his feet were in the endzone, and then i told her how dumb she was.  then the ref goes and basically reinforced what she was saying. 

The ref was saying his feet were down while the ball was in the end zone.  It's an important distinction to make since you need two feet down in order to establish possession.  SO he was saying Holmes had two feet down, thus establishing possession, WHILE the ball was in the end zone.  

I suppose it's only a minor detail that the call was incorrect.  There was 0 way you could tell conclusively he was in with possession.

BTW Glen Macnow is a farging retard.  He's saying his feet were in so he was in.  Glen Macnow=dumb steelers girl?

[SunMo]

0 way to tell?  i can easily look at that one camera angle down the goal line and see that he caught the ball and the ball broke the plane.

[phattymatty]

magic eyes

[SunMo]

don't get fresh

[Eagles_Legendz]

0 way to tell?  i can easily look at that one camera angle down the goal line and see that he caught the ball and the ball broke the plane.

His feet weren't on the ground while the ball was in the end zone.  I thought there was absolutely no way you could see he had possession (both feet were down) AND the ball was across the plane.  I just didn't see it.

[Father Demon]

If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down.  As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon).  I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

I, for one, am sad for John Harbaugh.

[Eagles_Legendz]

If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down.  As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon).  I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.

Ok, people are missing the point. 

In order to ESTABLISH possession, at some point you need to have two feet down.  You can launch yourself into the end zone because you've already established possession.  I'm not saying that in order for a play to be a TD you need to have two feet in the end zone.  I'm saying in order for it to be a touchdown you need to have already established possession, and in order to establish possession you must FIRST get two feet down, in the end zone or elsewhere.  Holmes needed to have two feet down and THEN have the ball cross the goal line.  Where the two feet were is irrelevant.  I think the ball was across the goal line for a split second while in Holmes' hands, BUT I didn't think he had established possession yet (his two feet hadn't been down with the ball under control).  By the time the two feet got down and possession was established, his momentum had carried him back to the 1.

[shorebird]

The ref was saying his feet were down while the ball was in the end zone.  It's an important distinction to make since you need two feet down in order to establish possession.  SO he was saying Holmes had two feet down, thus establishing possession, WHILE the ball was in the end zone.  

That makes sense, if thats really what he meant. I think when your overturning a call, you might want to be a little more clear on why.

If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down.  As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon).  I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.

I think making a catch is different from running into the end zone and diving while sticking the ball out. When your making a catch, you have to have both feet inbounds to establish possesion. When your running with the ball you have already established possesion.

It's six to one half a dozen to the other as to wether or not the ball broke the plane. The Ref seems to think it did. Imo, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call made on the field.  

[rjs246]

I, for one, am sad for John Harbaugh.

Hahahaha. I can't remember the last time I laughed at a post of yours, but this was funny.

[Eagles_Legendz]

The ref was saying his feet were down while the ball was in the end zone.  It's an important distinction to make since you need two feet down in order to establish possession.  SO he was saying Holmes had two feet down, thus establishing possession, WHILE the ball was in the end zone.  

That makes sense, if thats really what he meant. I think when your overturning a call, you might want to be a little more clear on why.

If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down.  As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon).  I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.

I think making a catch is different from running into the end zone and diving while sticking the ball out. When your making a catch, you have to have both feet inbounds to establish possesion. When your running with the ball you have already established possesion.

It's six to one half a dozen to the other as to wether or not the ball broke the plane. The Ref seems to think it did. Imo, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call made on the field.  

Exactly, and I agree.

[MDS]

whats even dumber was pitt calling a timeout with 26 seconds left. bodymore had some to's, but pitt should have burned the clock down to 1 second for a 4th down play from the 1 after the ball was spotted short of the td.

of course, it didnt end up mattering, but never the less, dont these idiot nfl teams know how to clock manage properly?

[SunMo]

they didn't call timeout, the clock was stopped for the review

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

I, for one, am sad for John Harbaugh.

Hahahaha. I can't remember the last time I laughed at a post of yours, but this was funny.

Monday morning is a hell of a time to hit the sauce, man.


BTW, LOL @ Flacco trying to run the hurry-up at the end of the game last night.  He made Donovan McNabb look cool under pressure.

[MDS]

they didn't call timeout, the clock was stopped for the review

rofl was looking at the sidelines and called a to, then they went to the review.