CaptainHook

Collie is out cold.

Recommended Posts

:wacko: Then why wasn't it challenged?

3-10-PHI40 (13:05) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to R.Wayne to PHI 29 for 11 yards (D.Patterson). Philadelphia challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #2.)

 

that was the play prior to Collie getting hurt and remember this was in the 1st half...my guess is that Reid didn't want to chance losing a challenge and not having any for the entire 2nd half of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3-10-PHI40 (13:05) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to R.Wayne to PHI 29 for 11 yards (D.Patterson). Philadelphia challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #2.)

 

that was the play prior to Collie getting hurt and remember this was in the 1st half...my guess is that Reid didn't want to chance losing a challenge and not having any for the entire 2nd half of the game.

 

 

Stop cluttering up a good argument with facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please watch this
.

 

Clark had three feet down here too. Here was the ruling:

 

2-8-IND 14 (3:33) (Shotgun) J.Sorgi pass to D.Clark to IND 38 for 24 yards (J.Lynch). FUMBLES (J.Lynch), recovered by IND-R.Wayne at IND 38. R.Wayne to DEN 41 for 21 yards (K.Kennedy). FUMBLES (K.Kennedy), RECOVERED by DEN-K.Herndon at DEN 41. K.Herndon for 59 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Play Challenged by IND and REVERSED. (Shotgun) J.Sorgi pass incomplete to D.Clark (J.Lynch). PENALTY on DEN-J.Lynch, Personal Foul, 15 yards, enforced at IND 14 - No Play.

 

NFL came out the next week, said it was the right call. Fined Lynch.

 

You must be on some heavy drugs. Clark is cracked as his 2nd foot is hitting the ground after the "reception"...which from that angle, may not even be a clean reception yet since the defenders hand is in-between the ball and Clark.

 

I was trying my best to give you some credence in your view (in light of what everyone else here is saying about you)....but this "example" is fraudulent, and I know you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont know how Hook has kept up his argument for this long. I only had to watch the replay once to see that it was a catch with obvious possession and to also see that there is no way at the time of the hit you could call Collie a "defenseless receiver". He catches the ball away from his body, has time to bring it into his body and tuck it away, THEN has time to turn his upper body upfield to run after the catch, THEN has time to see that he is about to get blasted so he covers up the ball with both hands and lower his head to brace for impact. If that is not possession then I dont know what is. It was a catch followed by a fumble on a clean hit. End of story. I dont know how anyone can argue that after watching the replay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must be on some heavy drugs. Clark is cracked as his 2nd foot is hitting the ground after the "reception"...which from that angle, may not even be a clean reception yet since the defenders hand is in-between the ball and Clark.

 

I was trying my best to give you some credence in your view (in light of what everyone else here is saying about you)....but this "example" is fraudulent, and I know you know it.

What? I know it's crappy youtube video from one angle . . . but come on . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And since both plays were ruled incomplete, both drew a flag.

 

The difference is, after being able to see it in slow-motion, everyone except you and the Colts coach has said it was a catch. Which is why now it is clear that while one play involved hitting a defenseless WR, the other did not.

 

I am sure the league will comment on it this week. And I'll bet you whatever you want that no suspension or fine is levied because it's pretty easy to see with the advantage of instant replay that the hit was clean, and legal.

 

I'm willing to back it up...are you?

No way in hel1 that they come out and say the ref was wrong...they will follow suit and try to say the 2nd foot wasn't down or something...but the proof will be in if coleman is fined or not (as I am writing this I just heard on NFLN that he wasn't fined...have been in meetings all day with no net access so didn't know that yet)

 

:wacko: I HAVE ALREADY SAID HE SHOULD NOT BE FINED

 

But I would be surprised if the league came out and said the ref made an incorrect ruling.

 

The key here is "defenseless". I guess I'd like to see the NFL rules on this. Clearly it involve more that just possession for the referees.

Not a stretch for the league to back their refs.

 

He didn't have it long enough to be a completion.

when did length of time get added into the rule book for completions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? I know it's crappy youtube video from one angle . . . but come on . . .

so you see 3 feet in the Clark vid but not in the Collie vid :wacko:

 

fwiw the clark video to me looks like his first step with possession is with his left foot but honestly that angle isn't good enough...or at least not as good as the Collie one is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know how anyone can argue that after watching the replay.

 

Us either....not sure what he thinks he saw (or worse, sees in the slo-mo replays, which show it is a blatant catch and fumble).

 

Some guys have a tough time admitting they are wrong....others know they are wrong, but for some reason just want to continue to argue. Take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us either....not sure what he thinks he saw (or worse, sees in the slo-mo replays, which show it is a blatant catch and fumble).

 

Some guys have a tough time admitting they are wrong....others know they are wrong, but for some reason just want to continue to argue. Take your pick.

 

Not sure which one it is, but it's moved yesterday from sad and then to today...pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 pages & it still should've been a fumble

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsIn0lih48w no other evidence is needed

 

C'mon Hook, you can't seriously watch this and still keep your position, can you ? He caugh the ball, got two feet down, took a step, twisted his body around to head upfield, lowered his head and body position, covered the ball, and got hit while taking his next step.

 

That shouldn't have been a penalty, and it should have been a catch & fumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsIn0lih48w no other evidence is needed

 

C'mon Hook, you can't seriously watch this and still keep your position, can you ? He caugh the ball, got two feet down, took a step, twisted his body around to head upfield, lowered his head and body position, covered the ball, and got hit while taking his next step.

 

That shouldn't have been a penalty, and it should have been a catch & fumble.

 

Also on this video, at the 32 second mark, check out the side judge who was closest to the play and had the best angle. He ran up to the play and threw his bean bag, which means he thought the hit was clean, it was a catch, and there was a fumble. It wasn't until he realized Collie was out cold that he threw the flag. You can see it on this video, he reaches to his right hip and throws the bean bag, and then reaches to his left hip for the flag (you can see the flag thrown from his direction in the begining of the video - live shot - not replay).

 

This judge was dumbfounded on a bunch of calls yesterday, he seemed confused in general and was taking a long time to explain simple calls to the ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure it was helmet to helmet? May have just been a stray battery.

 

This cannot be overlooked in a 13 page thread. Classic. Bravo. :wacko:

C'mon Hook, you can't seriously watch this and still keep your position, can you ? He caugh the ball, got two feet down, took a step, twisted his body around to head upfield, lowered his head and body position, covered the ball, and got hit while taking his next step.

 

That shouldn't have been a penalty, and it should have been a catch & fumble.

I don't know how anyone can watch the video and come away thinking anything different that what Menudo typed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This cannot be overlooked in a 13 page thread. Classic. Bravo. :wacko:

I don't know how anyone can watch the video and come away thinking anything different that what Menudo typed here.

 

I believe this the most in this thread. Why? Because it's in bold type.

 

Bold type on a message board is like carrying around a clip board. Instant credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this the most in this thread. Why? Because it's in bold type.

 

Bold type on a message board is like carrying around a clip board. Instant credibility.

 

Todd Haley is an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-ZkiI...xYjcw&hl=en

 

I took some screen shots....shows when and where the ball is caught...shows the ball being brought to the "breadbasket" and shows how many feet down...also shows Hook is extra wrong now :wacko:

 

fwiw I have never done the google docs thing so hope it works for everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the largest penis of anyone in this thread.

 

When I catch a pass, my penis counts as my third leg down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL said Monday it will not hand out any discipline for the hit, even though Coleman was penalized for unnecessary roughness.

 

The NFL said because the helmet-to-helmet contact was a result of Collie being driven toward Coleman by Mikell's legal hit, there will be no fine. The league said game officials have been instructed to err on the side of player safety, and when in doubt, "penalize in situations such as this for unnecessary roughness."

 

So, according to the NFL, it was the right call. Please continue all your bitching and moaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-ZkiI...xYjcw&hl=en

 

I took some screen shots....shows when and where the ball is caught...shows the ball being brought to the "breadbasket" and shows how many feet down...also shows Hook is extra wrong now :wacko:

I have never said his feet weren't down? Some of you can't make your argument, so you put words in my mouth to make yours sound better. You need to catch up on some reading the last few pages. Nobody at the NFL is saying it should have been a fumble. I really am sorry you guys don't know the rule.

Edited by CaptainHook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NFL said Monday it will not hand out any discipline for the hit, even though Coleman was penalized for unnecessary roughness.

 

The NFL said because the helmet-to-helmet contact was a result of Collie being driven toward Coleman by Mikell's legal hit, there will be no fine. The league said game officials have been instructed to err on the side of player safety, and when in doubt, "penalize in situations such as this for unnecessary roughness."

 

So, according to the NFL, it was the right call. Please continue all your bitching and moaning.

Some questions for you.

 

How many feet did you say he got down (earlier in this thread)?

Did you say he did or didn't make a football move in this thread?

How long does a player have to hold the ball for it to be a catch(you mentioned he didn't have it long enough)?

Do you think it was an incomplete pass based on the slo-mo video that YOU saw, not what the officials ruled?

Did you look at the screen shots?

Will you look at the screen shots?

After you look at the screen shots will you answer a few more questions?

 

assuming you looked at the screen shots:

How many feet did he get down?

Did he make a football move?

How long did he have the ball?

Do you think it was an incomplete pass based on the screen shots that you just looked at, not what the officials rules?

 

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never said his feet weren't down? You need to catch up on some reading the last few pages. Nobody at the NFL is saying it should have been a fumble. I really am sorry you guys don't know the rule.

I have read it...please just answer the questions in my last post, tia

 

oh and this isn't about the NFL or what they said...it is about what you are seeing...help us help you or vice versa :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.