September 19, 20169 yr [ATTACH=CONFIG]58100[/ATTACH] That's funny in that it both applies to Bengals fans and the Brent Spence Bridge. :lol2:
September 19, 20169 yr Just reported all Krogers around Cincinnati are running low on Kleenex right now. So because your beloved Noles got their butts handed to them yesterday and you change your avatar to the Steelers you think you can start stuff again?
September 19, 20169 yr So because your beloved Noles got their butts handed to them yesterday and you change your avatar to the Steelers you think you can start stuff again? Haha I can change my Avatar to whatever I want.
September 19, 20169 yr A couple questions: 1. Does the NFL automatically review all scoring plays? Should they have reviewed Uzomah's catch without a challenge flag? 2. What is the explanation on the Boyd fumble? The only possible explanation I can see being used by the NFL is that they could not clearly see the ball in Boyd's hand with his knee down. They could see the knee down but could not actually see the the ball and where it was when his knee hit the ground. Thus, no clear proof he still had the ball when his knee hit the ground. Is that it? They needed to actually see the ball also?
September 19, 20169 yr On holding not being called, there is holding on every play in the NFL. However, usually when there is holding right at the point of attack the refs will call it. For example, when a player who is one step from sacking the QB gets pulled down from behind by his arm right at the QB's feet, a ref will call that one. Or, when a running back is going through a hole and the linebacker in the hole gets one hand on him but is being held by his other hand, holding will get called. Are those the type of holding calls people are saying were not called?
September 19, 20169 yr OK. Look at the video in this link. A very bad fumble call cost the Bengals a chance to beat the Steelers | For The Win It looks clear to me that Boyd still had the ball in his hand with his knee down when contact was made that knocked the ball loose. That was not a fumble. You can slow the video and freeze it. I have to believe the NFL has at least this level of quality video. That being said, even if that is ruled down, not a fumble, that doesn't mean the game result is different. The Bengals still had to score a TD and get a 2 point conversion just to tie the game.
September 19, 20169 yr Funny. I couldn't get the size right but the ref's hat has the Steelers logo on the side also. Edited September 19, 20169 yr by Voice of Reason
September 19, 20169 yr A couple questions: 1. Does the NFL automatically review all scoring plays? Should they have reviewed Uzomah's catch without a challenge flag? 2. What is the explanation on the Boyd fumble? The only possible explanation I can see being used by the NFL is that they could not clearly see the ball in Boyd's hand with his knee down. They could see the knee down but could not actually see the the ball and where it was when his knee hit the ground. Thus, no clear proof he still had the ball when his knee hit the ground. Is that it? They needed to actually see the ball also? As to number 1 I believe that they do. The problem is it wasn't a scoring play. The pass was ruled incomplete, it would require a challenge.
September 19, 20169 yr As to number 1 I believe that they do. The problem is it wasn't a scoring play. The pass was ruled incomplete, it would require a challenge. So they only review to overrule a call and disallow a TD, not to confirm the ref missed a TD? That rule needs to change if that is correct.
September 19, 20169 yr A couple questions: 1. Does the NFL automatically review all scoring plays? Should they have reviewed Uzomah's catch without a challenge flag? 2. What is the explanation on the Boyd fumble? The only possible explanation I can see being used by the NFL is that they could not clearly see the ball in Boyd's hand with his knee down. They could see the knee down but could not actually see the the ball and where it was when his knee hit the ground. Thus, no clear proof he still had the ball when his knee hit the ground. Is that it? They needed to actually see the ball also? On Boyd that is what Pereira said on twitter concerning not a clear view, although he said he looked down.
September 19, 20169 yr Haha I can change my Avatar to whatever I want. Sure you can, I just think it's funny that you jumped that ship so quickly and then come on here and start talking about the Bengals and their fans, when you were no where to be found after the game Saturday.
September 19, 20169 yr A couple questions: 1. Does the NFL automatically review all scoring plays? Should they have reviewed Uzomah's catch without a challenge flag? 2. What is the explanation on the Boyd fumble? The only possible explanation I can see being used by the NFL is that they could not clearly see the ball in Boyd's hand with his knee down. They could see the knee down but could not actually see the the ball and where it was when his knee hit the ground. Thus, no clear proof he still had the ball when his knee hit the ground. Is that it? They needed to actually see the ball also? As far as #1 I thought the same thing but then realized they ruled it not a TD on the field so it isn't considered a scoring play so therefor no review. 2. The officials are just idiots. no other explanation. The NFL Officials have been getting worse and worse for the last decade and it has gotten so bad recently it makes the NFL almost unwatchable.
September 19, 20169 yr We didn't actually land on the moon Elvis is alive and cuts the grass at Graceland 9/11 was an inside job Every official and person of influence associated with the NFL wants the Bengals to lose
September 19, 20169 yr Every official and person of influence associated with the NFL wants the Bengals to lose You could play a game without there even being officials present and it would be their fault. :lol2:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.