steelerfury.com
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/

AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Time"
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9249
Page 4 of 5

Author:  bradshaw2ben [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

In the entire history of bullshit calls and bullshit interceptions, that was one giant bullshit call/INT.

Author:  SteelerChef [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

bradshaw2ben wrote:
In the entire history of bullshit calls and bullshit interceptions, that was one giant bullshit call/INT.


Yep. Easily the worst i ever saw. And that was WITH replay

There are several moves id make in regards to rules/refs/replay etc if i was king

I still cant believe a trillion dollar entity like the nfl still has part time refs. Thats a big issue imo

Author:  R S [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

Shouldn't the call on the field stand unless it's a blatantly obvious mistake that is scene without a doubt on replay? Or is that just a college rule? Because if you have to rewind the damn thing 10 times and bring out a protractor, the call on the field should stand!

Author:  Steel Mike [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

But Troy's INT vs. the Colts in the 2006 Divisional Game didn't count...


Author:  Jobus Rum [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

Of all the things that is destroying the NFL game, replay review is at the top of the list.

Author:  Kodiak [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

Poltargyst wrote:
I still say incompetence rather than fix.


The thing is, now that the league office is in on every review, you don't need any grand conspiracy just a couple guys in a NY office putting their thumb on the scale to keep games close.

Author:  Kodiak [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

SteelerChef wrote:
Yep. Easily the worst i ever saw. And that was WITH replay


I asked this in the game thread - was that call REALLY worse than the one that gave us a fumble last week in CHI?

Those are the two worst replay results I've seen, and they happened in consecutive weeks in Steeler games.

Author:  Stillerz Bar [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

The whole premise around requiring a receiver complete the catch while going to the ground never sat well with me. Even worse, the concept Mike Pereira used in his explanation that the receiver has to have it a certain amount of time is just crazy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... klah7aLyLl

Brown had total control and took three steps before he went down and maintained control until he hit the ground and hitting the ground jarred the ball lose. If he never had control I could understand it but the reply showed that he did.

I also think there should be a 60-second “overturn clock” - once the reply review starts, so does the 60 seconds. If you don’t have definitive proof to overturn by the time it gets down to zero then they play stands.

Author:  Kodiak [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

Stillerz Bar wrote:
Brown had total control and took three steps before he went down and maintained control until he hit the ground and hitting the ground jarred the ball lose.


I thought he had control, actually changed hands and tucked it. It was while tucking it that the defensive guy batted it and it started moving, still moving to the ground (but not coming out). Sure looked to me like he established possession.

By the way, Harbaugh has someone wicked good and wicked quick....because they didn't challenge it was a fumble (which they lose), but that it was an interception.

Author:  Jeemie [ Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: AB Int. Now you have to account for something called "Ti

Stillerz Bar wrote:
The whole premise around requiring a receiver complete the catch while going to the ground never sat well with me. Even worse, the concept Mike Pereira used in his explanation that the receiver has to have it a certain amount of time is just crazy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... klah7aLyLl

Brown had total control and took three steps before he went down and maintained control until he hit the ground and hitting the ground jarred the ball lose. If he never had control I could understand it but the reply showed that he did.

I also think there should be a 60-second “overturn clock” - once the reply review starts, so does the 60 seconds. If you don’t have definitive proof to overturn by the time it gets down to zero then they play stands.


We likely never go to Super Bowl XXX if a) that rule had been in effect and b) replay had been in effect in 1995.

Not only because Kordell Stewart stepped OOB on his fumble, but because Ernie Mills dropped the ball when he went to ground following his spectacular grab at the one.

Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/