man...the raider's really got f-ed over today...it was so obvious that brady had absolutely no intensions of throwing the ball and just want to pump fake it...woodson got a clean tackle no that bastard and it was a CLEAR fumble. those idiot refs screwed the raiders out of this game i thought it was probably the worst call in the NFL this season...F#CK THOSE REFS!
RAIDERS GOT F$CKED OVER!!!
- Thread starter lilbabimac
- Start date
chibchakan
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2001
- 2,349
- 0
- 76
Here's the rule the they cited:
Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book: "...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
Byt that, the call was the correct one. Regardless, anything that causes a Raiders loss is fine by me. Nothing worse than another week of listening to Raider fans around here (the Bay Area) thinking the Raiders are going all the way.
Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book: "...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
Byt that, the call was the correct one. Regardless, anything that causes a Raiders loss is fine by me. Nothing worse than another week of listening to Raider fans around here (the Bay Area) thinking the Raiders are going all the way.
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,420
- 1,600
- 126
got it
Trailing 13-10, and facing first-and-10 from the Raiders' 48-yard line with less than two minutes remaining, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was hit by Charles Woodson, losing the football. Raiders linebacker Greg Biekert fell on the ball with 1:43 remaining and the play was ruled a fumble on the field, essentially ending the game.
However, amid jubilation on the Raiders' sideline and dejection on the Patriots', the call came from upstairs that the play was being reviewed. At first glance, it seemed certain the ruling would be that Brady fumbled the football. He had pumped the ball, appearing to try tucking it away, when Woodson knocked the football loose.
After a number of minutes and plenty of head scratching, the play was ruled an incomplete pass. The ruling of referee Walt Coleman: while Brady was trying to tuck the ball, his arm was moving forward, thus the play was ruled an incomplete pass. This was based on Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book: "...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
Explained Coleman to a pool reporter, "When I got over to the replay monitor and looked it was obvious that his arm was coming forward, he was trying to tuck the ball and they just knocked it out of his hand. His hand was coming forward, which makes it an incomplete pass."
Asked to explain what it would have taken for it to be ruled a fumble, Coleman said, "He would have had to have brought it all the way in and got it all the way underneath his arm in order for it (to be a fumble)."
After the game, the Raiders couldn't hide their disappointment and bewilderment and it's likely that no explanation from Coleman or the league will satisfy Oakland. "I don't understand how that play is looked at," Raiders coach Jon Gruden said. "But I thought it was a fumble."
Woodson, who had as good a look at the play as anybody on the field, was far less judicious, saying simply "It's bull----. I thought it was bull---- call. It never should have been overturned."
"Unbelievable that (Coleman) could sit there and look at it that many times and still get the wrong call," Woodson added.
While trying to say the right thing, Jerry Rice couldn't hide the disappointment in his voice. "I think we did enough to win this game," he said, "It just didn't work out that way. I'll let you guys say why."
While it is overly simple to pin the "why" Rice was alluding to on one play, 26 years from now Raiders fans will remember this play the same way Patriots fans remember the "phantom" sack.
Trailing 13-10, and facing first-and-10 from the Raiders' 48-yard line with less than two minutes remaining, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was hit by Charles Woodson, losing the football. Raiders linebacker Greg Biekert fell on the ball with 1:43 remaining and the play was ruled a fumble on the field, essentially ending the game.
However, amid jubilation on the Raiders' sideline and dejection on the Patriots', the call came from upstairs that the play was being reviewed. At first glance, it seemed certain the ruling would be that Brady fumbled the football. He had pumped the ball, appearing to try tucking it away, when Woodson knocked the football loose.
After a number of minutes and plenty of head scratching, the play was ruled an incomplete pass. The ruling of referee Walt Coleman: while Brady was trying to tuck the ball, his arm was moving forward, thus the play was ruled an incomplete pass. This was based on Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book: "...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
Explained Coleman to a pool reporter, "When I got over to the replay monitor and looked it was obvious that his arm was coming forward, he was trying to tuck the ball and they just knocked it out of his hand. His hand was coming forward, which makes it an incomplete pass."
Asked to explain what it would have taken for it to be ruled a fumble, Coleman said, "He would have had to have brought it all the way in and got it all the way underneath his arm in order for it (to be a fumble)."
After the game, the Raiders couldn't hide their disappointment and bewilderment and it's likely that no explanation from Coleman or the league will satisfy Oakland. "I don't understand how that play is looked at," Raiders coach Jon Gruden said. "But I thought it was a fumble."
Woodson, who had as good a look at the play as anybody on the field, was far less judicious, saying simply "It's bull----. I thought it was bull---- call. It never should have been overturned."
"Unbelievable that (Coleman) could sit there and look at it that many times and still get the wrong call," Woodson added.
While trying to say the right thing, Jerry Rice couldn't hide the disappointment in his voice. "I think we did enough to win this game," he said, "It just didn't work out that way. I'll let you guys say why."
While it is overly simple to pin the "why" Rice was alluding to on one play, 26 years from now Raiders fans will remember this play the same way Patriots fans remember the "phantom" sack.
- Jul 19, 2001
- 38,572
- 2
- 91
yea see that's the thing...if brady was in the motion of throwing the ball and was going to ACTUALLY pass it...it would of been a PI...but he didn't try to throw it and was only trying to pump it...
ESPN:
Trailing 13-10, and facing first-and-10 from the Raiders' 48-yard line with less than two minutes remaining, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was hit by Charles Woodson, losing the football. Raiders linebacker Greg Biekert fell on the ball with 1:43 remaining and the play was ruled a fumble on the field, essentially ending the game.
However, amid jubilation on the Raiders' sideline and dejection on the Patriots', the call came from upstairs that the play was being reviewed. At first glance, it seemed certain the ruling would be that Brady fumbled the football. He had pumped the ball, appearing to try tucking it away, when Woodson knocked the football loose.
After a number of minutes and plenty of head scratching, the play was ruled an incomplete pass. The ruling of referee Walt Coleman: while Brady was trying to tuck the ball, his arm was moving forward, thus the play was ruled an incomplete pass. This was based on Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book: "...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
Explained Coleman to a pool reporter, "When I got over to the replay monitor and looked it was obvious that his arm was coming forward, he was trying to tuck the ball and they just knocked it out of his hand. His hand was coming forward, which makes it an incomplete pass."
Asked to explain what it would have taken for it to be ruled a fumble, Coleman said, "He would have had to have brought it all the way in and got it all the way underneath his arm in order for it (to be a fumble)."
ESPN:
Trailing 13-10, and facing first-and-10 from the Raiders' 48-yard line with less than two minutes remaining, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was hit by Charles Woodson, losing the football. Raiders linebacker Greg Biekert fell on the ball with 1:43 remaining and the play was ruled a fumble on the field, essentially ending the game.
However, amid jubilation on the Raiders' sideline and dejection on the Patriots', the call came from upstairs that the play was being reviewed. At first glance, it seemed certain the ruling would be that Brady fumbled the football. He had pumped the ball, appearing to try tucking it away, when Woodson knocked the football loose.
After a number of minutes and plenty of head scratching, the play was ruled an incomplete pass. The ruling of referee Walt Coleman: while Brady was trying to tuck the ball, his arm was moving forward, thus the play was ruled an incomplete pass. This was based on Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book: "...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
Explained Coleman to a pool reporter, "When I got over to the replay monitor and looked it was obvious that his arm was coming forward, he was trying to tuck the ball and they just knocked it out of his hand. His hand was coming forward, which makes it an incomplete pass."
Asked to explain what it would have taken for it to be ruled a fumble, Coleman said, "He would have had to have brought it all the way in and got it all the way underneath his arm in order for it (to be a fumble)."
well for all i'm concerned...they could've done whatever the hell they wanted to do...i just wanted my raiders to get a FAIR call...!!
not a pats or raiders fan...cause whoever won will lose next round...
raiders should have won that game...worst call i have even seen in a football game...it was a fumble...no doubt about it...def. no indisputable evidance...i mean if there was this forum wouldnt have been created....since it is disputable...the rules call that it is not overturned, its that simple
raiders should have won that game...worst call i have even seen in a football game...it was a fumble...no doubt about it...def. no indisputable evidance...i mean if there was this forum wouldnt have been created....since it is disputable...the rules call that it is not overturned, its that simple
<< Paul Tagliabue
Commissioner
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017 >>
its the NFL's way of getting rid of the instant replay...what the ref saw in the replay- Tagliabue-" man overturn this call and you will never have to come back to this replay sh!t ever again!"
The call was correct- its the rule that needs to be changed, and I'm sure it will this offseason. If you remeber a couple of years ago, Keyshawn Johnson had adiving catch. Even though he clearly had posesion, it was ruled incomplete because the ball touched the ground on the way down. That was the rule, and they've since changed it.
<< The call was correct- its the rule that needs to be changed, and I'm sure it will this offseason. If you remeber a couple of years ago, Keyshawn Johnson had adiving catch. Even though he clearly had posesion, it was ruled incomplete because the ball touched the ground on the way down. That was the rule, and they've since changed it. >>
bullsh!t if that call was correct! if you saw the replay, forward motion had stopped and he had his other hand, both hands, on the ball by the time woodson hacked him. that was a f'ed up call and everyoen knows it.
the nancy-boy pats had this game gifted to them. the raiders played a good game, in tough conditions, at foxboro. they won this game and had it taken away from them.
i hope the steelers roll over the ravens today and then just beat the pats into the ground like they deserve. the pats don't even deserve to be in the championship game.
<<
<< The call was correct- its the rule that needs to be changed, and I'm sure it will this offseason. If you remeber a couple of years ago, Keyshawn Johnson had adiving catch. Even though he clearly had posesion, it was ruled incomplete because the ball touched the ground on the way down. That was the rule, and they've since changed it. >>
bullsh!t if that call was correct! if you saw the replay, forward motion had stopped and he had his other hand, both hands, on the ball by the time woodson hacked him. that was a f'ed up call and everyoen knows it.
the nancy-boy pats had this game gifted to them. the raiders played a good game, in tough conditions, at foxboro. they won this game and had it taken away from them.
i hope the steelers roll over the ravens today and then just beat the pats into the ground like they deserve. the pats don't even deserve to be in the championship game. >>
Whatever, man. Did you even read the rule posted above? By that definition, it was a pass. Go cry to your mommy for all I care, because the game's over and there's nothing you can do to change that.
I don't think he was going to pass the ball either. He obviously had changed his mind, was considering tucking it into his body but never actually got that far so I agree with the call.
<-----Will cry when football is over
<-----Will cry when football is over
<< Whatever, man. Did you even read the rule posted above? By that definition, it was a pass. Go cry to your mommy for all I care, because the game's over and there's nothing you can do to change that. >>
yeah, i read the rule but apparently you can't read. forward motion had stopped when that ball was hacked.
yeah, the game is over but next week we'll see that the pats don't belong in the championship game.
as for crying to mommy, sorry, i gave that up about 35 years ago. maybe your mommy can still teach you to read.
<<
<< Whatever, man. Did you even read the rule posted above? By that definition, it was a pass. Go cry to your mommy for all I care, because the game's over and there's nothing you can do to change that. >>
yeah, i read the rule but apparently you can't read. forward motion had stopped when that ball was hacked.
yeah, the game is over but next week we'll see that the pats don't belong in the championship game.
as for crying to mommy, sorry, i gave that up about 35 years ago. maybe your mommy can still teach you to read. >>
He didn't have the ball tucked when he was hit, and the replay didn't show the ball tucked that is why it is the correct call. If you are hit in the process of tucking it, it's still an incomplete pass.
murphy55d
Lifer
- Dec 26, 2000
- 11,542
- 5
- 81
Guys, it makes no difference what his intention was. His arm was coming forward, whether thats intended to be a pass or a pump, it is still forward motion of his arm. If his arm comes forward and the ball is knocked loose, that is by rule an incomplete pass.
You can argue it's a bad rule, but bad rules are still enforced until changed.
You can argue it's a bad rule, but bad rules are still enforced until changed.
The NFL is rapidly loosing it's credibility. Refs dictate the ebb and flow of games and too often decide the outcome. But hey, it's only entertainment...just like All Star Wrestling, which is what the NFL will be compared to in 10 years if they continue on the path they're on right
now. It's to be expected though. There is just way too much money involved in pro sports for them to remain pure.
I shut the game off when Brady fumbled and was shocked when I checked the scores in the morning and found the Pats had won. It's too bad Chicago lost...we could have had the Pats and Bears in the Stupor Bowl. Now it will have to be the Steelers and the Pack (hey, it could happen )
now. It's to be expected though. There is just way too much money involved in pro sports for them to remain pure.
I shut the game off when Brady fumbled and was shocked when I checked the scores in the morning and found the Pats had won. It's too bad Chicago lost...we could have had the Pats and Bears in the Stupor Bowl. Now it will have to be the Steelers and the Pack (hey, it could happen
)Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Al "the biggest jurk in football" Davis.
Almost makes up for 1975.
The Grump
Almost makes up for 1975.
The Grump
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter