Carl Johnson Sucks

[Hoofbite]

This guy is unreal.

Here he is talking about the play in Miami.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...d81baa9b7/Dissecting-some-controversial-calls

Can't determine who recovered the ball because there is a long period of time when the "scrum" is occurring?

Does he think this excuse flies? I can't tell you how many times I have seen a ginormous pile up and possession overturned after they sorted it out. I means, what do they do when the ball is out and everyone jumps on it? I've never seen them say they couldn't determine who recovered the ball so the possessing team gets it.

Usually, they just peel guys off until they find the ball and award possession.

This was absolutely a blown call and this guy has the nerve to stick his incoherent excuses on TV.

I checked last week and they didn't talk about the Dallas TD penalty, pretty much knew they wouldn't. Also, no mention of the Browns player who sauntered up to the goal line before flipping into the endzone.

This guy is a joke. He's worse then Periera by a mile. At least Periera could explain something that sounded reasonable while waving his hands. I mean, you knew it was an excuse but he presented his excuse so well that it might just fly. Carl, he can bare string together enough words to get a complete excuse out.

 

[jimmy40]

Also, no mention of the Browns player who sauntered up to the goal line before flipping into the endzone.

why would they mention that? unless it was to show how funny it was.

 

[Kevinicus]

This guy is unreal.

Here he is talking about the play in Miami.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...d81baa9b7/Dissecting-some-controversial-calls

Can't determine who recovered the ball because there is a long period of time when the "scrum" is occurring?

Does he think this excuse flies? I can't tell you how many times I have seen a ginormous pile up and possession overturned after they sorted it out. I means, what do they do when the ball is out and everyone jumps on it? I've never seen them say they couldn't determine who recovered the ball so the possessing team gets it.

Usually, they just peel guys off until they find the ball and award possession.

This was absolutely a blown call and this guy has the nerve to stick his incoherent excuses on TV.

I checked last week and they didn't talk about the Dallas TD penalty, pretty much knew they wouldn't. Also, no mention of the Browns player who sauntered up to the goal line before flipping into the endzone.

This guy is a joke. He's worse then Periera by a mile. At least Periera could explain something that sounded reasonable while waving his hands. I mean, you knew it was an excuse but he presented his excuse so well that it might just fly. Carl, he can bare string together enough words to get a complete excuse out.

You're ignoring the rules, good job, you would make a good ref.

You're comparing a normal play with this particular situation being reviewed by replay. In this instance there has to be CLEAR EVIDENCE on the REPLAY to award posession. If there is a pileup, there is not going to be clear evidence on the replay.

The replay process was handled correctly. The mess up was the initial ruling of a Touchdown.

And sauntering up to the endzone and doing a flip into the endzone for the score is not a penalty either, it's not even considered a celebration.

 

[TheDallasDon]

I want 2 punch Carl Johnson in the throat every time I see and hear him talk

 

[Hoofbite]

You're ignoring the rules, good job, you would make a good ref.

You're comparing a normal play with this particular situation being reviewed by replay. In this instance there has to be CLEAR EVIDENCE on the REPLAY to award posession. If there is a pileup, there is not going to be clear evidence on the replay.

The replay process was handled correctly. The mess up was the initial ruling of a Touchdown.

And sauntering up to the endzone and doing a flip into the endzone for the score is not a penalty either, it's not even considered a celebration.

Maybe you could explain why Reggie Bush was fined 5K for pointing at Brian Urlacher as he was going into the endzone when the Bears played Saints in the playoffs a few years back.

There are some things that warrant a penalty or fine. If a point does, how anyone can say that a guy jogging slowly 25 yards and coming to a dead stop at the goal line before flipping in doesn't warrant something is beyond me.

Not that it matters but if we want to technical, I'd bet anything the ball cross the plane before his flip.

As far as CLEAR EVIDENCE, that's only pertinent when? When the play is blown dead? Because you can hear Carl say about two different things. The scrum didn't happen and you can't award after a scrum. If the scrum didn't happen, there's no need to even discuss the scrum. If the mistake on this play was a quick whistle, the scrum doesn't even come into play because, as Carl said, "when the officials rule touchdown on the field, the play is over, the ball is deal". (He says this right before talking about not being able to award the ball unless clear evidence prior to a scrum)

So again, I am wanting to know why clear evidence is necessary in this case but not in other cases that are nearly identical. You cannot cite "clear evidence" if the play didn't officially happen. If it's blown dead, that's the call that is made, not some ridiculous thing about clear evidence.

 

[wood28]

This dude is a complete moron!!!

 

[Kevinicus]

Maybe you could explain why Reggie Bush was fined 5K for pointing at Brian Urlacher as he was going into the endzone when the Bears played Saints in the playoffs a few years back.

There are some things that warrant a penalty or fine. If a point does, how anyone can say that a guy jogging slowly 25 yards and coming to a dead stop at the goal line before flipping in doesn't warrant something is beyond me.

Not that it matters but if we want to technical, I'd bet anything the ball cross the plane before his flip.

As far as CLEAR EVIDENCE, that's only pertinent when? When the play is blown dead? Because you can hear Carl say about two different things. The scrum didn't happen and you can't award after a scrum. If the scrum didn't happen, there's no need to even discuss the scrum. If the mistake on this play was a quick whistle, the scrum doesn't even come into play because, as Carl said, "when the officials rule touchdown on the field, the play is over, the ball is deal". (He says this right before talking about not being able to award the ball unless clear evidence prior to a scrum)

So again, I am wanting to know why clear evidence is necessary in this case but not in other cases that are nearly identical. You cannot cite "clear evidence" if the play didn't officially happen. If it's blown dead, that's the call that is made, not some ridiculous thing about clear evidence.

There has to be clear evidence of who got the ball before the view is obscured by the "scrum" or pile or whatever you want to call all the bodies that block the ball from view of the cameras. It's pretty clear. The replay has to show possession of the ball taking place to award it to either team once it is ruled a fumble.

As for the Reggie Bush thing I'm not familiar with it, but pointing at your opponent is generally considered taunting. One might considered going slowly down the line as taunting, but usually so much. I don't think it warrants anything, and it's perfectly legal as well. There are also plenty of illegal things that I don't think warrant a penalty or fine either, but they are against the rules and will, sometimes, get called.

 

[Hoofbite]

There has to be clear evidence of who got the ball before the view is obscured by the "scrum" or pile or whatever you want to call all the bodies that block the ball from view of the cameras. It's pretty clear. The replay has to show possession of the ball taking place to award it to either team once it is ruled a fumble.

As for the Reggie Bush thing I'm not familiar with it, but pointing at your opponent is generally considered taunting. One might considered going slowly down the line as taunting, but usually so much. I don't think it warrants anything, and it's perfectly legal as well. There are also plenty of illegal things that I don't think warrant a penalty or fine either, but they are against the rules and will, sometimes, get called.

But that's not what I am asking. I'm hearing their excuse.

My question is why?

Why in this situation must there be clear evidence when in others they just pull guys off the pile?

 

[Paniolo22]

On the Browns touchdown, the player did not score yet before he went to the ground. It's similar to diving into the endzone, thus no penalty, even though the announcers were asking for one. It's BS if you ask me, I've seen that one called on college kids.

 

[jimmy40]

maybe if the Saints would have bothered to even have a player within 50 yards of the Browns player flipping into the endzone the refs might have thought about throwing a flag but I would hope not, it was funny.

 

[SkinsFan28]

But that's not what I am asking. I'm hearing their excuse.

My question is why?

Why in this situation must there be clear evidence when in others they just pull guys off the pile?

If it goes to replay it has to be clear evidence, simply put that is the difference.

In this particular case, the ref signals touchdown - which has the same effect as blowing the play dead. The refs on the field did not sort out the scrum because they saw it as a TD, and let the scrum come and go. Since the on-field refs did NOT declare a possession change, the replay has to show clear evidence of recovery.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If it goes to replay it has to be clear evidence, simply put that is the difference.

In this particular case, the ref signals touchdown - which has the same effect as blowing the play dead. The refs on the field did not sort out the scrum because they saw it as a TD, and let the scrum come and go. Since the on-field refs did NOT declare a possession change, the replay has to show clear evidence of recovery.

Correct!

 

[Kevinicus]

But that's not what I am asking. I'm hearing their excuse.

My question is why?

Why in this situation must there be clear evidence when in others they just pull guys off the pile?

Because that's the replay rule, for every replay. In order for replay to overturn something, there has to be clear visual evidence.