Shorttynaz Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) Anyone watching this game? These refs have completely blown 2 review plays so far, BOTH in favor of the Brownies. To end the first quarter, an interception was ruled "complete" when the ball clearly hit the ground. And just a few minutes ago, B Edwards was ruled to receive a 67 yrd TD pass from Anderson. It was a hell of a play, but the replay clearly showed that Terrance Holt ran into his LEFT LEG - it blew backwards on the contact but he was ruled as not being touched. I dont get it. Even one of the commentators said that he is leaving the booth cause he's never seen 2 plays that SHOULD have been overturned NOT be overturned. Oh well.. It's a good game regardless Edited December 2, 2007 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjpro11 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 worst game i've seen officiated all year.. absolutely pathetic. its 10x worse when they miss reviewed calls too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Edwards was not touched when he was on the ground... Also, by rule, to overturn a play there must be undisputable evidence... It just wasn't there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 worst game i've seen officiated all year.. absolutely pathetic. its 10x worse when they miss reviewed calls too. You guys haven't watched many games this season, or you're playing against Anderson or Edwards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjpro11 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Edwards was not touched when he was on the ground... Also, by rule, to overturn a play there must be undisputable evidence... It just wasn't there... he was touched when after caught the ball in mid air and gained possession of the ball. when he fell down he was down. the guy that hit him in the groin wasnt the guy that touched him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Edwards was not touched when he was on the ground... Also, by rule, to overturn a play there must be undisputable evidence... It just wasn't there... I think it was indisputable that Edwards leg was contacted by the defender before he went to the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted December 2, 2007 Author Share Posted December 2, 2007 Edwards was not touched when he was on the ground... Also, by rule, to overturn a play there must be undisputable evidence... It just wasn't there... You're correct.. Edwards was not touched when he was on the ground. However his left leg took a shot from Holt BEFORE he hit the ground. This is what caused him to fall! Replay showed it. The last replay (from the endzone behind the play) CLEARLY showed the hit. Holt was diving for the interception and Edwards kicked Holt. Oh well.. What's done is done. And the Cards are about t score again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 he was touched when after caught the ball in mid air and gained possession of the ball. when he fell down he was down. the guy that hit him in the groin wasnt the guy that touched him down. I know, they were looking at Torrence Holt, not Antrell Rolle... By definition, a ref cannot overturn a play unless it is indisputable... There is wiggle room for either team to dispute it, thus, no overturning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Smales Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I know this is bad Karma for me but i think that play just put me into the playoffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefjay Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I know, they were looking at Torrence Holt, not Antrell Rolle... By definition, a ref cannot overturn a play unless it is indisputable... There is wiggle room for either team to dispute it, thus, no overturning. It was indisputable, what play were you watching. He was hit on the leg and then went to the ground, I believe they call that a tackle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCMB Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Scoreboard, baby!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Edwards was not touched when he was on the ground... Also, by rule, to overturn a play there must be undisputable evidence... It just wasn't there... I agree with this ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 And then to finish the game with an incompletion when that should have been ruled a TD to Winslow. He clearly would have come down inbounds in the endzone if he was not shoved out in the air. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I know this is bad Karma for me but i think that play just put me into the playoffs Karma indeed. I got screwed outa Droughn's earlier TD when Lovie threw the red flag after the ball was snapped and they let him have his review which regardless of outcome nullified the touchdown. So, I'll gladly take a bad call (the brownies) that goes in my favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qball86 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I know, they were looking at Torrence Holt, not Antrell Rolle... By definition, a ref cannot overturn a play unless it is indisputable... There is wiggle room for either team to dispute it, thus, no overturning. I see a few people saying there was wiggle room but no one is saying to which part. 1. Braylons leg was hit by Holt while he was in the air 2. His leg immediately shot behind him 3. He fell to the ground with his knee touching the ground 4. He was down by contact what part is indisputable and how so? FWIW, just saw the Winslow replay, when he was "contacted" his right foot dug up some turf, it didn't look painted white like the sideline, it looked green. Don't have any dvr so if someone does I'd be curious if I saw that right. His left leg was his inside leg and probably had enough room to get it down in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I see a few people saying there was wiggle room but no one is saying to which part. 1. Braylons leg was hit by Holt while he was in the air 2. His leg immediately shot behind him 3. He fell to the ground with his knee touching the ground 4. He was down by contact what part is indisputable and how so? We must not have been watching the same play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qball86 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 is it too much to ask which part you didn't see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I see a few people saying there was wiggle room but no one is saying to which part. 1. Braylons leg was hit by Holt while he was in the air 2. His leg immediately shot behind him 3. He fell to the ground with his knee touching the ground 4. He was down by contact what part is indisputable and how so? FWIW, just saw the Winslow replay, when he was "contacted" his right foot dug up some turf, it didn't look painted white like the sideline, it looked green. Don't have any dvr so if someone does I'd be curious if I saw that right. His left leg was his inside leg and probably had enough room to get it down in. But,you couldnt see the actual touching because of the angle.You can only assume he touched him. Which is why it wasnt indisputable evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qball86 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 maybe logic isn't part of instant replay then. there's no way I can think that Holt running full speed didn't hit Braylons leg while it was out in front of him. Braylons leg then swung back in a way I assumed could only happen if it was pushed around by Holt running by, guess thats my bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 But,you couldnt see the actual touching because of the angle.You can only assume he touched him. Which is why it wasnt indisputable evidence. That is the only way the call made sense, but as others are pointing out, it is physically impossible for Edward's leg to do what it did without being moved by some kind of sudden force. I'm not sure were this falls into the realm of indisputable evidence, but probably somewhere between 99.99 and 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 That is the only way the call made sense, but as others are pointing out, it is physically impossible for Edward's leg to do what it did without being moved by some kind of sudden force. I'm not sure were this falls into the realm of indisputable evidence, but probably somewhere between 99.99 and 100%. Wrong. You can't make an assumption. Indisputable evidence is NOT based on an ASSUMPTION (your assumption being that one of the Arizona players touched the leg even though you can not see the actual contact). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Wrong. You can't make an assumption. Indisputable evidence is NOT based on an ASSUMPTION (your assumption being that one of the Arizona players touched the leg even though you can not see the actual contact). I understand that is why it didn't get overturned. But assumption isn't the correct word of choice here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha-z Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I knew it, the tree really DOESN"T make any sound in the woods when it falls (of course unless you see it)!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I knew it, the tree really DOESN"T make any sound in the woods when it falls (of course unless you see it)!!!!!!!!!!! Actually it does, I've heard it many a times and not seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha-z Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Actually it does, I've heard it many a times and not seen it. Sasquatch maybe??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.