- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I still want to know how this is an incomplete pass
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:40 am to saintsfan92612
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:40 am to saintsfan92612
The bottom line is this:
Can anyone HONESTLY say that they can CLEARLY see the BALL touch the ground.
The HONEST answer is NO.
Therefore, the play should not have been overturned.
Can anyone HONESTLY say that they can CLEARLY see the BALL touch the ground.
The HONEST answer is NO.
Therefore, the play should not have been overturned.
1
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:44 am to saintsfan92612
This was awful and wasn't even the worse touchdown the refs took from the Saints.
Blowing the whistle, for no reason, during the McCluster fumble return TD was terrible.
"OOPS, we'll just give you the ball where we blew whistle instead."
Blowing the whistle, for no reason, during the McCluster fumble return TD was terrible.
"OOPS, we'll just give you the ball where we blew whistle instead."
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:48 am to Sophandros
quote:
The bottom line is this:
Can anyone HONESTLY say that they can CLEARLY see the BALL touch the ground.
The HONEST answer is NO.
Therefore, the play should not have been overturned.
Quick question....was the call made by looking at an animated gif on a message board or HD video? Unless you have the same look, how do YOU know it was wrong?
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:53 am to saintsfan92612
It's almost like they replaced the regular referees with ones who don't know what they're doing. Like lingerie league quality refs.
Oh wait...
Oh wait...
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:03 pm to arrakis
Mike Pereira said the refs got it wrong, then they got it wrong. Pretty simple
Had they ruled it incomplete on the field, then I could understand...but they didn't
that second angle definitely helps see it a little clearer but doesn't make it "conclusive" one way or the other
Had they ruled it incomplete on the field, then I could understand...but they didn't
that second angle definitely helps see it a little clearer but doesn't make it "conclusive" one way or the other
This post was edited on 9/26/12 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:05 pm to arrakis
quote:That 2nd .gif is actually pretty close to how it looked when they showed it during the game. It was blurry and choppy, just like the .gif, because they had to slow it down to super slow mo to see it.
Quick question....was the call made by looking at an animated gif on a message board or HD video? Unless you have the same look, how do YOU know it was wrong?
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:18 pm to saintsfan92612
does not look like it touched theground at all
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:20 pm to arrakis
quote:
Quick question....was the call made by looking at an animated gif on a message board or HD video? Unless you have the same look, how do YOU know it was wrong?
Because I watched it in HD and saw the same thing.
Additionally, Mike mother fricking Perriera, who knows a bit more about NFL reffing than any of us, stated that it was incorrect to overturn it.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:25 pm to Sophandros
because it was too close to overturn, not because the ball did not touch the ground. but if you look at it with an open mind you can see it touched the ground.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:27 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Additionally, Mike mother fricking Perriera, who knows a bit more about NFL reffing than any of us, stated that it was incorrect to overturn it.
That's the 1st thing you've posted that made sense.
Here's what he actually said:
quote:
"NO: I didn't think it was but the closeup shot convinved them that ball must have hit the ground. I don't think it was enough to overturn."
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:29 pm to bbap
quote:
because it was too close to overturn, not because the ball did not touch the ground. but if you look at it with an open mind you can see it touched the ground.
I CLEARLY stated throughout this entire thread that THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO OVERTURN THE CALL.
Not once have I stated that the ball did not touch the ground.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:30 pm to arrakis
"Must have" and "we have visual evidence that it did" are two different things.
You overturn a call based on the latter, not the former.
You overturn a call based on the latter, not the former.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:57 pm to bbap
quote:
its as pretty choppy gif. i saw it on cbs. it seemed pretty conclusive to me.
Does CBS in Indiana show different angles. I want to see the ball hitting the turf. I did not see that. Just because I could reasonably assume it did doesn't mean the evidence was conclusive.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News