 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Ravens..got..screwed
ironhorse2ko
Ravens..got..screwed
December 16, 2008 at 03:51PM View BBCode
Plain and simple...we got...SCREWED!!!
Hamilton2
December 16, 2008 at 03:56PM View BBCode
They lost to a great team on a catch made in the END ZONE after allowing a 92 yard drive in the final minute. Maybe if they could have made a play sometime during the last 92 yards instead of waiting for the refs to bail them out they could have won.
whiskybear
December 16, 2008 at 04:43PM View BBCode
Well, the catch wasn't made in the end zone. (I agree that the Ravens defense should have come alive at some point before that catch at the 1.)
whiskybear
December 16, 2008 at 04:47PM View BBCode
Also, to Ironhorse, try having it happen in a Super Bowl, buddy.
happy
Im actually getting kind of bothered by this stuff. Refs seem to regularly get the call wrong on review. the clinton portis fumble a couple of weeks ago comes to mind, but there are numerous other examples.
December 16, 2008 at 05:09PM View BBCode
so the guy didnt make the endzone and the play wasnt reversed?Im actually getting kind of bothered by this stuff. Refs seem to regularly get the call wrong on review. the clinton portis fumble a couple of weeks ago comes to mind, but there are numerous other examples.
barterer2002
Once again, you're full of it.
December 16, 2008 at 05:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse2ko
Plain and simple...we got...SCREWED!!!
Once again, you're full of it.
dirtdevil
December 16, 2008 at 05:16PM View BBCode
the call on the field (no touchdown) was reversed after a booth review, the ruling being that the ball had broken the plane of the end zone when he gained control of it. i've only seen the replay very briefly, but from what i saw, and everything i've read, touchdown seems to have been the correct call.
tm4559
December 16, 2008 at 05:20PM View BBCode
how many times do you have to be told not to drag pesky facts into the discussion?
whiskybear
The receiver was falling out of the end zone toward the 1-yard line and clearly did not possess the football while the ball was within the plane. At best the call on the field should have stood for lack of sufficient and indisputable visual evidence. A reversal is pretty much unforgivable. But it's the Steelers, so what else is new?
December 16, 2008 at 05:28PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
the call on the field (no touchdown) was reversed after a booth review, the ruling being that the ball had broken the plane of the end zone when he gained control of it. i've only seen the replay very briefly, but from what i saw, and everything i've read, touchdown seems to have been the correct call.
The receiver was falling out of the end zone toward the 1-yard line and clearly did not possess the football while the ball was within the plane. At best the call on the field should have stood for lack of sufficient and indisputable visual evidence. A reversal is pretty much unforgivable. But it's the Steelers, so what else is new?
whiskybear
December 16, 2008 at 05:57PM View BBCode
There is no statute of limitations on motherfucking Super Bowls.
Hamilton2
I can see that you are upset by the reversal, since the evidence was perhaps inconclusive, but I really think it was the right call.
Also, they originally spotted the ball inside the 1 yard line. PIT still would have scored, as it is virtually impossible to not get into the end zone from a half yard out on a QB sneak, and there was sufficient time for 2 more plays if needed.
December 16, 2008 at 06:05PM View BBCode
He took possession of the ball immediately. There was no juggling/bobbling or otherwise struggling to gain control. The WR was well within the endzone when he caught the pass, and the ball easily broke the plane of the goalline.I can see that you are upset by the reversal, since the evidence was perhaps inconclusive, but I really think it was the right call.
Also, they originally spotted the ball inside the 1 yard line. PIT still would have scored, as it is virtually impossible to not get into the end zone from a half yard out on a QB sneak, and there was sufficient time for 2 more plays if needed.
FuriousGiorge
Somewhere, a warm, pleasant sensation comes over Shrutebag, and he is unable to identify the source.
December 16, 2008 at 06:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
There is no statute of limitations on motherfucking Super Bowls.
Somewhere, a warm, pleasant sensation comes over Shrutebag, and he is unable to identify the source.
whiskybear
Then let them settle it on the field. Also, the play occurred on third down; it would have brought up a fourth-and-inches decision for the Steelers.
(Basically, that's a damn stupid thing to say, Joe.)
December 16, 2008 at 06:10PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Also, they originally spotted the ball inside the 1 yard line. PIT still would have scored, as it is virtually impossible to not get into the end zone from a half yard out on a QB sneak, and there was sufficient time for 2 more plays if needed.
Then let them settle it on the field. Also, the play occurred on third down; it would have brought up a fourth-and-inches decision for the Steelers.
(Basically, that's a damn stupid thing to say, Joe.)
whiskybear
December 16, 2008 at 06:10PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Oh shut up Craig.
Hamilton2
My point still remains that the Ravens ought to have made a play somewhere in the 92 yards preceding the goalline, instead of counting on a catch which was made in the end zone being ruled a non touchdown.
(Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. I admit it.)
December 16, 2008 at 06:13PM View BBCode
OK, so they had 1 chance. They would have scored.My point still remains that the Ravens ought to have made a play somewhere in the 92 yards preceding the goalline, instead of counting on a catch which was made in the end zone being ruled a non touchdown.
(Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. I admit it.)
whiskybear
December 16, 2008 at 06:15PM View BBCode
I agree that the Ravens defense should have made a stop on that drive. I watched it and it was pitiful. But the replay and subsequent reversal were not handled correctly by the officials.
happy
And i have seen bad calls go both ways on the replays (overturned and calls standing)
December 16, 2008 at 06:25PM View BBCode
the theory is that they did make a stop, right then at the one yard line, and the refs blew the game. there is a reason it was a 92 yard drive not a 91 yard drive.And i have seen bad calls go both ways on the replays (overturned and calls standing)
Faceman
I understand that and am the first to argue that replay should only be used for obvious screwups, which this clearly was not. That said, replay isn't used for that.
The whole "ball scores a TD not the player" is a stupid rule as it is. If Holmes is standing just as he was, toes in the end zone, only he's leaning out the side or back (instead of the front) of the end zone, it's a TD and nobody even bats an eyelash. But since he's hanging out the front, it's different.
The rule is stupid. The player should have to touch in the end zone. It shouldn't be the ball crossing the line.
December 16, 2008 at 06:31PM View BBCode
The ball hit his hands within the white line (or the plane). TD.I understand that and am the first to argue that replay should only be used for obvious screwups, which this clearly was not. That said, replay isn't used for that.
The whole "ball scores a TD not the player" is a stupid rule as it is. If Holmes is standing just as he was, toes in the end zone, only he's leaning out the side or back (instead of the front) of the end zone, it's a TD and nobody even bats an eyelash. But since he's hanging out the front, it's different.
The rule is stupid. The player should have to touch in the end zone. It shouldn't be the ball crossing the line.
whiskybear
This is the stupidest thing you've eversaid written.
December 16, 2008 at 06:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Faceman
The rule is stupid. The player should have to touch in the end zone. It shouldn't be the ball crossing the line.
This is the stupidest thing you've ever
FuriousGiorge
December 16, 2008 at 06:34PM View BBCode
Every down call made on every part of the field is spotted where the ball ends up. Why should the endzone be any different?
Faceman
I love how you make your arguments so factual. . what exactly, did Coleman do wrong? You can disagree on what you see in the replay, but he most certainly handled the replay situation correctly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121500396.html
Quote:
Later, referee Walt Coleman said, "He had two feet down. When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane."
December 16, 2008 at 06:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
But the replay and subsequent reversal were not handled correctly by the officials.
I love how you make your arguments so factual. . what exactly, did Coleman do wrong? You can disagree on what you see in the replay, but he most certainly handled the replay situation correctly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121500396.html
Quote:
Later, referee Walt Coleman said, "He had two feet down. When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane."
Pages: 1 2