Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Pittsburgh TD against Ravens


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#16 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,938 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 10:22 PM

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!

#17 outlaw4

outlaw4

    Winning Cures Everything

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 972 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 11:09 PM

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?

Posted Image

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.

Edited by outlaw4, 15 December 2008 - 11:12 PM.


#18 engine9

engine9

    shoota muhfukkaina minute

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 11:58 PM

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:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.