- 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: Brees to Jimmy TD overturned
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:08 am to bbap
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:08 am to bbap
quote:
I have no idea how. It was there plain as day. cleats flicks white grass up into the air.
No they didn't. I saw that replay and I did not see what they were talking about. Don't listen to them, bro. They got you to believe what they said. That was the wrong call. Plain and simple.
3
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:10 am to SouljaBreauxTellEm
quote:Dude. Did I seriously just waste all that fricking time typing all this shite for you to ask this on the same fricking page?
horsecrap
why do you have to have both feet in when every week i see tip toe catches all the time?
there's no heel in those catches.. so therefore u don't have to have the entire foot. right?
quote:
It's really simple. When you drag your toes and then pick your feet up or just fall over, the only thing that touched the ground on that particular step was the toe. If you tap your heel inbounds with your toes up and then pick up your foot without your toes touching the ground, you've completed a step and are inbounds. There is nothing that says that a complete step has to include a whole foot, but if the complete step DOES include a whole foot, then that whole foot has to land inbounds, regardless of which part of the foot hits first.
Graham's heel hit inbounds, followed by his toes hitting out of bounds all as part of a single step, so he was out. Had Graham's heel hit and then he picked up his foot before the toes hit out and just fell to the ground, it would've been inbounds and a TD.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:11 am to Deathrider
quote:
No they didn't. I saw that replay and I did not see what they were talking about. Don't listen to them, bro. They got you to believe what they said. That was the wrong call. Plain and simple.
That's it. Exit stage right and GTFO off this board now. To simply deny fricking visual evidence, it's beyond fricking retarded.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:13 am to Chad504boy
quote:
To simply deny fricking visual evidence,
Visual evidence that is not there and could have been doctored in later? Give me a break.
This post was edited on 12/12/11 at 10:14 am
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:15 am to Titleist72
i had jimmy on my fantasy team too, and that call cost me the game. I will never understand breaking the plane vs. 1 foot a heel,and a knee in the endzone.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:16 am to iluvla
I'm convinced they make it up. 
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:17 am to Deathrider
quote:
No they didn't.
Yes they did. If you are really disagreeing with that then you can't be helped.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:17 am to Deathrider
I didn't see a blade of grass flick up. That last angle Fox showed just before the refs came back to make the call definitely showed that toe never touched the ground.
I'm not one to say the refs were against the Saints or out to get us, but I do believe they made the wrong call there. And I was appalled at how quickly they determined Locker made that TD.. it looked like there were NO good angles for that, it seems like it would have been a very long review, not 10 seconds. That game was horribly officiated, the refs took over and it was tough to watch.
@deathrider
Do you HONESTLY and REALLY believe the doctored the footage? REALLY? Come on.
I'm not one to say the refs were against the Saints or out to get us, but I do believe they made the wrong call there. And I was appalled at how quickly they determined Locker made that TD.. it looked like there were NO good angles for that, it seems like it would have been a very long review, not 10 seconds. That game was horribly officiated, the refs took over and it was tough to watch.
@deathrider
Do you HONESTLY and REALLY believe the doctored the footage? REALLY? Come on.
This post was edited on 12/12/11 at 10:19 am
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:17 am to iluvla
quote:
Visual evidence that is not there and could have been doctored in later?
the conspiracists! not only does espn hate us but the refs are conspiring now. it's rigged!
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:19 am to SouljaBreauxTellEm
quote:
why do you have to have both feet in when every week i see tip toe catches all the time?
its like you just started watching football. to not understand the difference between those types of plays is sorta sad.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:20 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
That last angle Fox showed just before the refs came back to make the call definitely showed that toe never touched the ground.
No after the kickoff joe bucks comes on and says "saints fan can rest because they did get the calll right" then they show a blowup slowmo and his cleat clear as day flicks up white grass. to say it didnt is just wrong.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:20 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
@deathrider
Do you HONESTLY and REALLY believe the doctored the footage? REALLY? Come on.
It's possible they could do it, but I'm not going to bet my car on it.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:21 am to blueslover
quote:The Zapruder replay clearly showed a second receiver on the white grassy knoll...
the conspiracists!
not only does espn hate us but the refs are conspiring now. it's rigged!
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:22 am to bbap
quote:
No after the kickoff joe bucks comes on and says "saints fan can rest because they did get the calll right" then they show a blowup slowmo and his cleat clear as day flicks up white grass. to say it didnt is just wrong.
That shot just before they showed the supposed blade of grass flick up told the true tale, imo. Not one part of his foot, including the toe and cleats, touched out of bounds. I didn't see white blades of grass flick up.. I saw a white piece of grass standing up prior to and after but I didn't see if that was the one they were talking about, nor did I see that same one bend. I just didn't see it. It's all a moot point now, but I didn't see it.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:23 am to Deathrider
quote:
I believe both calls were wrong and nothing will convince me otherwise. I wouldn't even accept a letter from the league office. Those refs were trying hard to screw the Saints and it was obvious
then you are a homer that can't rationally watch the saints, as a fan of neither team it was the right call
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:23 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
Not one part of his foot, including the toe and cleats, touched out of bounds
Im sorry but you are wrong. You are a good poster but you are incorrect here.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:27 am to bbap
quote:
Im sorry but you are wrong. You are a good poster but you are incorrect here.
I wish I could see that shot again. It was that shot that convinced even the announcers that he was in bounds.
I may be wrong, but until someone here gives video evidence of it and I can see that I was wrong, I'm sticking with what I remember seeing. As far as I saw, he was in bounds.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:28 am to Hulkklogan
The simple fact that there is this much debate about the replay means that there is no way a call on the field can be overturned based on that replay. End of story.
This post was edited on 12/12/11 at 10:29 am
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:30 am to Jamohn
quote:
The simple fact that there is this much debate about the replay means that there is no way a call on the field can be overturned based on that replay. End of story.
Actually, our debate has no bearing on the call on the field. Only the officials can do that and make a call.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 10:32 am to Jamohn
quote:
The simple fact that there is this much debate about the replay means that there is no way a call on the field can be overturned based on that replay. End of story.
Eh.. Not necessarily. It just means it all depends on what the refs saw. Apparently they saw a blade of grass get touched... which if it did, so be it. I just didn't see the same thing.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News