User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:37:45 PM EDT
[#1]
Is the score 14 to 3? I am adamant that the people who matter declared it a TD. Observing that the call was a TD. I happen to agree that the ball cleared the front edge of the plane while he was still airborne, not adamant about it though. It IS a TD, no matter how much you snivel about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:38:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Really? Funny, the play IS a TD. Owned? Hardly. I'm siding with the guy who was 2.5' from the ball. Not trying to overrule him from 1000 miles away. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:40:09 PM EDT
[#3]
What was the score at the end of the first quarter?? and second?? I'm not able to watch the game
 .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:42:02 PM EDT
[#4]
That wasn't a field goal...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:42:46 PM EDT
[#5]
No. I reviewed the play. You WERE owned. No matter how much you snivel about it. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:44:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Interestingly enough the score is STILL 14-3. Hopefully we'll get the hear the Seahwaks fans snivel about it for the next 4 decades that they don't make it back to the show. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:46:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Talking to the wrong guy. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:46:17 PM EDT
[#8]
My initial impression was it was a TD. I see nothing that would make me change that POV. To me, and remember the camera angle was slightly from the endzone, the ball crossed the plane while #7 was in the air.
ETA: If Seahawks fans are mad they should be mad at their team for the penalties that seem to be killing them at key moments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:47:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Stop. It. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:47:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Funny Shivan, the ref made the review from a TV... got it? He didn't call it on the spot, he called it from a video review on a TV... the same fucking thing we did. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:48:24 PM EDT
[#11]
The linesmen made the call standing 2.5' from the play. He signaled TOUCHDOWN. Get it? Probably not. The BOOTH MADE hiim review it. Didn't they? [ETA: Glad to see you understand the workings of the game though...] |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:49:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Actually, SHIVAN is talking about the initial call by the ref. The one on the line who saw things from a better angle than the camera, ie no parallax, for lack of a better term. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:51:20 PM EDT
[#13]
The final determination whether to uphold that call is made by the ref who reviewed the video footage... the guy who can slow it down, rewind it, freeze frame it. He was seeing the same thing we were. That ball did not cross the plane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:52:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Apparently he was not seeing what your "thoroughly skilled and trained" eye saw, huh? Since he ratified what the linesmen called from 2.5' away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:53:07 PM EDT
[#15]
There wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field, period. You can't tell given the camera angle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:53:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Seattle just cheated.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:53:56 PM EDT
[#17]
Let me ask the ONLY question that matters: Did the play result in 6 points? OK, I've said enough. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:54:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Boy, that pick just shifted the momentum!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:55:03 PM EDT
[#19]
FWIW, losers obsess over a single call. That's what Seattle's coach did going into the locker room. Even if you think you were screwed, you don't focus on it. Not if you want to win, at least.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:55:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Finally! And the 6 points go to Pit! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:57:04 PM EDT
[#21]
No, let's cry some more....
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:57:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Cop-out answer... just because the call is made and stands doesn;t mean it is the correct call... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:58:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Losers obsess, winners move on. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 4:59:13 PM EDT
[#24]
WTH is a Seahawk anyway?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:00:04 PM EDT
[#25]
I'm sorry, what are your NFL game calling qualifications? I'm just curious. For me, I'll rely on the guy 2.5' from the play who has called pro games for at least 7 years. A prerequisite for Super Bowl crews. Then I'll further rely on his boss who said the camera either showed him crossing the plane, or didn;t show us enough to overrule the call. Cop-out? Hardly. The play was called for 6 points. It was ratiifed, and stands as 6 points. Next!!!! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:00:41 PM EDT
[#26]
SH-60 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:01:57 PM EDT
[#27]
That was an interesting analogy one of the sideline reporters used to describe how an injured player went down:
"It was like he was hit by a sniper." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:02:55 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:05:14 PM EDT
[#29]
I see we are dealing with knowledgable football people.... A "sniper" is the guy who races down the field with the express mission of "sniping". Sniping originally was to hit a small quickly moving Snipe {bird} in a hunting analogy. The Snipe in this context is the kick returner. The guy got whacked by one of the "snipers". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:05:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Just curious... what's your view of the second amendment? Individual or collective right? What if a learned judge o the federal bench who has been there for 30 years says it is not an individual right... does that make it so? Do you defer to your own judgement or his? Do qualifications give somebody a blanket acceptance by you? Doctors every commit malpractice? Lawyers ever fuck up resulting in a mistrial? Come on man. What you are saying is a ref can never make a wrong call because of the fact thet they are a professional ref and have a minimum mount of experience? Your answers are getting more ridiculous. My eyes work just fine. BTW, you said the disallowed Seahawk TD was not PI... but the ref said it was, right? How could it not be if they called it as such? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:07:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Screw the game. I just want Seattle to cover the GD 4!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:09:15 PM EDT
[#32]
You never are able to stay on topic. I'll disregard this BS...
Simply because you can't refute something don't place the burden on my resposnes. THe fact is the guy called it a TD from the outset. It was ratified as such.
I've been watching football long enough that the type of contact made is not pass interference in my mind from YEARS AND YEARS ago. It WAS pass interference in today's rules. Period. Though I don't agree that it SHOULD be PI. Get it? Again, I bet not. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:10:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quite a stretch going from the individual rights of the second amendment to a referee's call. In fact HR, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. I expect much more out of an intelligent man like yourself.
Your eyes, your opinion. You haven't addressed the parallax issue yet. Ever look over at the speedo when you're a passenger in a car? Do you get an accurate speed? No. Same thing here. Getting stuck on one call is getting stuck on stupid. The Seahawks moved on, so should you. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:12:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Incorrect. The sideline announcer used the "sniping" analogy to described how he just crumbled while running, from his hurt knee. Nice try though. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:14:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Didn"t look like a touchdown to me either, but the Man said it was,
 well
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:17:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Come on Shivan. We all know you didn't even watch the game. You just like to argue!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:21:31 PM EDT
[#37]
My TiVo disagrees with you.... Nice try though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:21:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Another conveniently timed holding call on Seattle. If Pittsburgh wins, their investment in refs will have paid nicely.
 ETA: And then the ball gets picked. The biggest plays in this game have been made by the refs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:23:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Sorry dport, it is spot on. Shivan's contention is you can't arrive at your own conclusions because somebody who is a professional called it one way. It is a debate tactic known as infinitum ad absurdum... you point out the fallacy by taking it to an extreme. So refs by virtue of being refs are never wrong when it comes to sports calls. Doctors by virtue of being doctors are never wrong concerning medical calls and judges by virtue of being judges are never wrong on legal matters. Since we know judges make bad rulings, doctors make bad diagnoses, etc... Refs can certainly make bad calls, thus the argument that by virture of being a ref you are automatically right on your calls is equally flawed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:24:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Interception!
The Stealers are living up to their name, or at least the refs are. Every damn big play the Hawks make is called back by flags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:26:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Now a penalty on Hasselbacks tackle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:31:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Fuck, I think that Al Davis must be calling the Seahawks plays, they have gone to the prevent offense and are killing themselves with bullshit calls.
All they need now is a tuck rule call.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:33:28 PM EDT
[#43]
fucking robbed!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:34:11 PM EDT
[#44]
I have my DVR and will review it later. We'll see who's right. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:34:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Another bullshit call, contact was clear!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:36:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Except that's not what SHIVAN said. He said he trusts the initial call because the replay wasn't clear enough to be decisive. In other words, due to the lack of convincing evidence otherwise, the tie goes to the ref on the field. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:36:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Well, guess what they overturned it. They had clear evidence this time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:38:46 PM EDT
[#48]
I still say the ball broke the plane while he was in the air. He was hit on the way down by the OLB and forced backards, but broke the plane beforehand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:46:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Dude, there wasn't even a need to go to the replay... this time the TV clearly showed what the refs couldn't see... contact. And Shivan argued that superbowl refs have seven years pro reffing experience just to be there, so he was siding with their view over some armchari ref like me. The implication, by virtue of being a superbowl ref the ref is automatically correct. That is a flawed argument and I showed why through a time honored debating tactic. Should have been clearer from the beginning that was what I was doing, but I don;t write my best posts while watching refs fuck games up with strings of bad calls. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2006 5:50:20 PM EDT
[#50]
I couldn't care less who wins this, and I agree. It amazes me how so many people can see the same thing, and come to absoultly opposite conclusions. It is always the "refs" fault when you are on the losing side. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
