RAIDERS GOT F$CKED OVER!!!

[jjones]

<<
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Al "the biggest jurk in football" Davis.
Almost makes up for 1975.

The Grump
>>


well, that's one thing i can agree with. i feel bad for the raiders loss but davis is a first class a-hole.

btw, myputer, the rule has nothing to do with "tucking" the ball; it's about forward motion. that was just the idiot ref coleman trying to cover his mistake and actually proves how wrong he was. he didn't even interpret the rule correctly.

 

[myputer]

<<

<<
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Al "the biggest jurk in football" Davis.
Almost makes up for 1975.

The Grump
>>


well, that's one thing i can agree with. i feel bad for the raiders loss but davis is a first class a-hole.

btw, myputer, the rule has nothing to do with "tucking" the ball; it's about forward motion. that was just the idiot ref coleman trying to cover his mistake and actually proves how wrong he was. he didn't even interpret the rule correctly. >>




If he would have tucked the ball after doing forward motion and lost it, it would be considered a fumble. That was in a statement released from the Director of NFL officials last night after the game. I agree that he wasn't going to throw the ball, but rules are rules, maybe they will change that for next year.

 

[speg]

jjones, he was bring the ball back down when he lost it. Therefore by that rule it is an incomplete pass. Yeah it sucks and it may be a stupid rule, but you have to play by the rules, therefore it was incomplete.

 

[Jay59express]

no speg, you are wrong. When the ball was jarred loose, he clearly had 2 hands on it, briging it towards his body. The ball was then jarred out, and there was not enough evidence from the replays to show that he did not have it tucked, therefor they should not have overturned the call, because the evidence was not clear enough, therefor it should have remained oakland ball, oakland wins.

 

[speg]

yes he was bringing it back down. but he didn't have it completley tucked away, thus by those rules making it incomplete.

 

[myputer]

<< yes he was bringing it back down. but he didn't have it completley tucked away, thus by those rules making it incomplete. >>



Exactly!

 

[Muadib]

It was a good call. Yes, clearly you could tell he meant to tuck it, but he didn't.

 

[spidey07]

looks like ESPN is doing a 1/2 hour show on that call at 11:00 am EST. Should be interesting. called - "Upon Further Review" or something like that.

 

[Aceman]

Ya ya ya ya ya ya.........Whatever people! And the Eagles and Vikings didn't get screwed last year when the NY Giants "tapped" into their playcalling headsets? Noticed how fast that one blew over even though there supposedly was proof?

Look you Raider fans complain about the call and the instant replay. YOU GUYS AREN'T TALKING MUCH ABOUT HOW YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED THE PATS IN OT, TAKEN POSSESSION AND WON THE GAME!

 

[Red Dawn]

Who cares, the Raiders lost and that's all that's important.

 

[josphII]

NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2

Note 2: When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his 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. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

Note 3: If the player loses possession of the ball while attempting to recock his arm, it is a fumble.

THAT is the rule, not the select few lines others have been posting. the fact of the matter is brady wasnt attempting to pass it forward thus this rule DOESNT EVEN APPLY, so no it wasnt the right call. furthermore he HAD TWO HANDS ON THE BALL WHEN HE LOST IT, thus the ball was tucked away. even if he didnt touch it with two hands you actually think the ball will ever touch his body after a pump fake? of course not! the ball had came to a complete stop. theres no way anybody can say the ball wasnt tucked or that he was throwing the ball. it was clearly a bad call.

 

[BeauJangles]

The ball was not completely tucked away first off. Brady was definately in the motion of pulling it back to his body when he was hit. Therefore it is an incomplete pass. Btch and moan about it all you want, but all that matters is the Raiders lost. Second. Consider it even for 26 years ago. That call was bullsht and EVERYONE knew it.

[edit] refs cannot look at intention they must only look at exactly what happened. Brady was moving the ball in a forward motion, and regardless of what his intention was the ball was moving forward. Thus it was an incomplete pass. I wish all the raiders fans would stop with the bs call thing. Whatever guys, all your btching and moaning isn't going to change the outcome. Face it, the raiders lost to the pats in OT.

The thing about the NFL falling apart i think is bs too. Just because a rule wasn't called in YOUR favor doesn't mean it wasn't fair. Being a fan of bad football teams I see critical calls against teams all the time. That doesn't mean I'm going to whine to the commission every frikken time it happens. Honestly, it was a fair call. Live with it or as said before, whine and cry, but stop wasting forum bandwith doing it. [/edit]

 

[josphII]

<< Who cares, the Raiders lost and that's all that's important. >>



the fact of the matter is the raiders won the game and it was taken away. it might go down as a loss but we all know who really won

 

[AgentOrange]

josphII

I think you have made the same point in 3 threads.... They lost, Get over it!

 

[PlatinumGold]

OMG the FIRST BAD CALL EVER in the NFL and it went against the POOR POOR RAIDERS.

Get over it. IT'S JUST A GAME.

Bad calls happen.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< might go down as a loss but we all know who really won >>

Hey if it makes you feel better and stops you from Whimpering I'll agree.

Of course, the teams of destiny, the teams that will be remembered for their character would have risen to the challenge and won the game in OT. It's clear the Raiders aren't that type of team. Instead of meeting the challenge and overcoming the adversity they rolled over like bitches in heat and let the Nancy Boy Pat's have their way with them. The great Raider Teams of the 70's would have been embarassed at the effort this team put forth yesterday and they really would be ashamed at the whimpering of their fans. Dressing up in Halloween Costumes is no substitute for testicles

 

[josphII]

the only thing that is more disturbing than the call itself is the people that try to justify it. it was a bad call, period. look at the rules, dont look at the rules, whatever. it was the wrong call. brady wasnt passing, thus any movement of his arm is irrelevant. and even if he was passing, he had both hands on the ball! furthermore if it was so god damn obvious that it was an incomplete pass then why didnt the refs blow the play dead and rule it an incomplete pass? because they knew it was a fumble too!

 

[BeauJangles]

<<

<< Who cares, the Raiders lost and that's all that's important. >>



the fact of the matter is the raiders won the game and it was taken away. it might go down as a loss but we all know who really won >>



WOw, the Raiders had the game stolen? I think not. How many times did the raiders have oppertunities to put the pats away. How many frikken times did they blow a scoring oppertunity? A lot. The raiders had numerous chances to make this call a nonfactor and they blew every one of them. So "the fact of the matter is " the raiders blew the game out their asses and got hammered for it on a controversial call that went against them. Deal.

Also, let me reiterate my first point. REFS CANNOT LOOK AT INTENTION. THE FACT THAT BRADY WASN"T THROWING IS IRRELIVANT, even looking at the rules, it's irrelivant. The ball wasn't back completely against his body, it's an incomplete pass according to rules. Granted it was close, but it's incomplete.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< How many frikken times did they blow a scoring oppertunity? A lot. The raiders had numerous chances to make this call a nonfactor and they blew every one of them. So "the fact of the matter is " the raiders blew the game out their asses and got hammered for it on a controversial call that went against them. Deal. >>



Yeayh but is so much easier to blame the officials than it is to admit that their team played like a bunch of losers

 

[BeauJangles]

<< Yeayh but is so much easier to blame the officials than it is to admit that their team played like a bunch of losers >>



lol, true that.

 

[4824guy]

The hand, ball and arm were all moving forward---it was a close judgement call that could have gone either way. I am surprized they overturned the onfield call, but anyways, that is football.


GO PATS

 

[dirtboy]

I'd like to know how Brady intended on passing the ball with BOTH hands on it. :| Very bad call IMHO.

 

[TallBill]

<< I'd like to know how Brady intended on passing the ball with BOTH hands on it. :| Very bad call IMHO. >>

two handed shovel pass?

 

[Aceman]

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF BRADY HAD TWO HANDS ON THE BALL! IT WASN'T TUCKED AWAY, AND THEREFORE WAS CONSIDERED A PASSING MOTION!!!!!!

 

[Red Dawn]

Here's the rule as posted in the Providence journal
When a Quaterback is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player losses possesion of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. It doesn't say that he has to use one arm.