Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pittsburgh TD against Ravens

18 posts in this topic

Posted

Considering the fact that the NFL is ruining the sport by making defensive players hit from the pro tee, and having offenses hit from the ladies tee just so people can see 50 points scored in a game..does it really surprise you that they favor the teams with the bigger market value?

I don't know about the call being fixed, but it does make you wonder if they're willing to sacrifice everything competitive about the NFL just to make more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Am I the only one who remembers 1 or 2 years ago when Donovan McNabb ran to the corner of the endzone, as he was being chased by a defender, he got his 2 feet in the endzone and ran out of bounds, and the ball was held in his right hand, never crossing the goalline.

The story was then: 2 feet and possession of the ball is all that is needed to score.

The only issue being that when Raven's coach asked, the side line judge claims the ball has to cross the goal line.

However, that was CLEARLY not the case in the McNabb case. The refs, clearly, stated possession of the ball and 2 feet is good enough.

Now unless they changed this rule, I fail to see the issue here.

And by the way, while everyone is complaining and "discussing" this... The ref NEVER stated the ball crossed hte line.

He stated, "2 feet were down and he had possession of the ball"..

So why is everyone concerned with the ball crossing the goalline, when the ref wasn't looking for that anyhow? As is proof by his statement, let me repeat it once more...

He stated, "2 feet were down and he had possession of the ball"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because the ball HAS to cross the goal line..PERIOD. Doesnt matter if he had 2 feet down or not, thats why the refs exlanation was questioned. Ravens got a bad call, and also had a terrible call go the other way on a 3rd and 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Am I the only one who remembers 1 or 2 years ago when Donovan McNabb ran to the corner of the endzone, as he was being chased by a defender, he got his 2 feet in the endzone and ran out of bounds, and the ball was held in his right hand, never crossing the goalline.

The story was then: 2 feet and possession of the ball is all that is needed to score.

The only issue being that when Raven's coach asked, the side line judge claims the ball has to cross the goal line.

However, that was CLEARLY not the case in the McNabb case. The refs, clearly, stated possession of the ball and 2 feet is good enough.

Now unless they changed this rule, I fail to see the issue here.

And by the way, while everyone is complaining and "discussing" this... The ref NEVER stated the ball crossed hte line.

He stated, "2 feet were down and he had possession of the ball"..

So why is everyone concerned with the ball crossing the goalline, when the ref wasn't looking for that anyhow? As is proof by his statement, let me repeat it once more...

He stated, "2 feet were down and he had possession of the ball"..

What about the time when Vick dove for the endzone, his whole body(and the ball) was out of bounds, but he stuck his hand in the endzone and they gave him the touchdown? Now that was B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Okay, so when it's a running play, it's all about "Did the ball cross the goal line? Did the ball cross the goal line? Did the ball cross the goal line?"

But if it's a pass, all it takes is two feet down and possession even though the ball might not cross the goal line?

bsflag.gif

I think the call on the field should have been upheld. And if it had been called a TD, then that call should have been upheld also.
What bothers me is that NFL refs rarely say anything like "there was insufficient video evidence to overturn the call". Coleman's explanation was a bunch of weak sauce, completely ignoring whether the ball crossed the goal line or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Am I the only one who remembers 1 or 2 years ago when Donovan McNabb ran to the corner of the endzone, as he was being chased by a defender, he got his 2 feet in the endzone and ran out of bounds, and the ball was held in his right hand, never crossing the goalline.

The story was then: 2 feet and possession of the ball is all that is needed to score.

The only issue being that when Raven's coach asked, the side line judge claims the ball has to cross the goal line.

However, that was CLEARLY not the case in the McNabb case. The refs, clearly, stated possession of the ball and 2 feet is good enough.

Now unless they changed this rule, I fail to see the issue here.

And by the way, while everyone is complaining and "discussing" this... The ref NEVER stated the ball crossed hte line.

He stated, "2 feet were down and he had possession of the ball"..

So why is everyone concerned with the ball crossing the goalline, when the ref wasn't looking for that anyhow? As is proof by his statement, let me repeat it once more...

He stated, "2 feet were down and he had possession of the ball"..

the goal line goes around the world :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites