| . | ||
 |
||
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 Location: Eldora FL, mostly
Registered: 04-30-2006
Posts: 515
|
Posted
|
 Location: Read my bio!!!
Registered: 01-06-2006
Posts: 2594
|
Posted
 |
 Location: Captain Underpants
Registered: 03-17-2004
Posts: 4297
|
Posted
AOTP, your avatars have been jinxing players all year. First it was Wynn then Colledge. How about the tiger picture again? Don't jinx Harrell please.
|
 Location: Bakersfield, CA via Manitowoc, WI
Registered: 09-24-2000
Posts: 9522
|
Posted
I get nothing on that link...
|
 Location: 400 Miles South West of Lambeau
Registered: 08-18-2000
Posts: 16639
|
Posted
|
 Location: Hastings, MN
Registered: 02-03-2000
Posts: 13276
|
Posted
stop whining. that play had no impact on the game.
 |
|
Location: Hastings, MN
Registered: 02-03-2000
Posts: 13276
|
Posted
The refs still suck;
The refs still suck; The refs still suck; The refs still suck; Yes they really, really, really, really, really, really suck; The refs, still, SUCK! |
 Location: Private jets for my men!
Registered: 09-22-2002
Posts: 25283
|
Posted
I think they need ref review on the review. That way the NFL can stretch the game to 5 hours and fans can go into a coma.
|
 Location: Baldwin,WI,USA
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 11047
|
Posted
I just saw the ref from the Packer/Cowboy game on a Bud Light commercial....
"What? It was a clean hit." |
 Location: Somewhere along I-94 picking up feces. Or so I'm told.
Registered: 07-13-2000
Posts: 8387
|
Posted
I am still confused about that play. One ref blew it dead, one didn't. But the one that did wins? And why was GB allowed to review? I hate to open up old wounds but I have to admit, myself (and the guys I was watching it with) were confused but then the game moved on and we forgot about it.
Can someone clue me in on why it was called the way it was? |
 Location: Mel Kiper .. Draft Expert !!
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 5753
|
Posted
McCarthy was only allowed to review whether it was a catch or not. Since the play was officially over when the one ref rule forward progress was stopped MM wasn't allowed to challenge whether Harris stripped the ball before TO stepped out of bounds. It was really dumb of MM to challenge since it was obvious it was a catch, and was never close to being an incomplete pass. |
 Location: the Florida gulf
Registered: 09-07-2002
Posts: 3285
|
Posted
As I understand it, the Packers couldn't challenge the forward progress ruling (I guess it's unreviewable, although you can challenge the spot of the ball - go figure, and if it could have been overturned would have meant that Harris had the strip). What I think McCarthy tried to do was, since Harris had stripped the ball (or intercepted), challenge that TO did not have possession and in effect get it ruled as an incomplete pass so it's back at the original line a scrimmage. I think they blew it all the way around although they tried to sugar coat the explanation on NFL Total Access. |
|
Location: the Florida gulf
Registered: 09-07-2002
Posts: 3285
|
Posted
I'd argue that it was as clear cut as you suggest. They've both got their hands on the ball as they go to the sideline, Owens doesn't secure it, and Harris comes away with it. I thought it was a good gamble to challenge it. By the way, the link doesn't appear to work. |
|
Location: Baldwin,WI,USA
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 11047
|
Posted
I really didn't think it was that bad of a choice my McCarthy to challenge it. Owens did not have the ball very long at all, before Harris took it away. Also, he provided the head official an oppurtunity to see how absolutely horrendous the call was and even gave him a loophole (catch vs non-catch) to overrule the terrible call. At the worse, even if the ref didn't overrule the call, by making the official aware of how bad the call was, McCarthy could have maybe gotten the benifit of the doubt on a later call....alas...that definately did not happen. |
 Location: Pismo Beach,CA
Registered: 09-19-2000
Posts: 3139
|
Posted
I agree, I think he did it just to make them look bad, like a message to not be blowing whistles until the play is over next time.
He had a "up yours" look on his face when he dropped the flag, like, "Here ya go guys, now the whole country can see your blatant screw up about five times while it's reviewed." Blatant speculation on my part, but if that's what was going on, I approve. Sometimes you have to burn one. |
 Location: Pitying the fools
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 7754
|
Posted
Everybody knew that ref stopped the play too soon.
I bet the guy who ruled progress stopped knew he screwed up right away. I agree is was cool that MM challanged it just to show everybody that they stopped the play too soon. But there was a 0% chance anything positive was going to come from the challange. Pack loses a challange, a timeout and then they tack on the delay of game penalty. But I am glad he did it. |
 Location: Stevens Point, WI
Registered: 04-07-2006
Posts: 601
|
Posted
Doesn't affect the outcome of the game stop whining blah blah blah |
 Location: New Orleans, LA
Registered: 02-21-2000
Posts: 6423
|
Posted
My guess is McC knew he was screwed on getting the INT so he went with the next best option. Since the ball was intercepted, it could not have been completed to the offensive player. I thought it was a reasonable challenge. |
 Location: CA
Registered: 09-18-2000
Posts: 1645
|
Posted
Is it just me, or has this kind of crap happened an awful lot with Green Bay games this year?
|
 Location: Mattoon Il
Registered: 11-26-2003
Posts: 2003
|
Posted
It's just you. Nobody else here thinks the 10-2 Green Bay Packers have gotten screwed by the refs. |
|
Location: Mel Kiper .. Draft Expert !!
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 5753
|
Posted
It was a waste though ... nothing could have been overturned because it was ruled that forward progress was stopped. The played ended right there in the refs eyes .. anything that happnened after (the strip) was ignored. Challenging what MM challenged was basically giving up a timeout, and nothing more. |
 Location: State of Mind
Registered: 01-22-2005
Posts: 570
|
Posted
|
 Registered: 01-27-2000
Posts: 10038
|
Posted
I'm not sure, but I think you're missing the point here. While the forward progress call made it impossible for the review to correctly establish that Harris had taken the ball away, it could have established that the ball was never completed (i.e., T.O. never had control of the ball before going out of bounds). |
|
Registered: 01-27-2000
Posts: 10038
|
Posted
I fixed an error in the original link posted. Both work now.
|
|
Registered: 01-27-2000
Posts: 10038
|
Posted
|
