FGs Reviewable?

[links18]

Two weeks in a row now we have a FG called good where it was really dificult to judge whether or not it was good from what we saw on TV. Phill Simms claimed in the telecast that FGs are now reviewable. If that is the case, that is a pretty big indictment of the coaching staff that we didn't review that FG last week. What exactly is the rule?

 

[BigDinAZ]

FG's that are within the height of the posts. Anything above the posts is NOT reviewable!!

 

[links18]

So who decides what is "above the posts?"

 

[Boysboy]

Two weeks in a row now we have a FG called good where it was really dificult to judge whether or not it was good from what we saw on TV. Phill Simms claimed in the telecast that FGs are now reviewable. If that is the case, that is a pretty big indictment of the coaching staff that we didn't review that FG last week. What exactly is the rule?

Dude-we WON the game! QUIT YOUR WHINING!:bang2:

 

[links18]

Dude-we WON the game! QUIT YOUR WHINING!:bang2:

Quite your ignorant attempt to stamp out any critical dissent. That's the same mentality that led to the financial meltdown that is going to cause you to lose your job in about 6 months. By the way, we LOST the game last week by 2 points....

 

[BigDinAZ]

So who decides what is "above the posts?"

The booth. The referees below can't really tell. That is why a ball that is higher than the top of the uprights is not reviewable. Plus there are no cameras in the area.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

FG's that are within the height of the posts. Anything above the posts is NOT reviewable!!

Simms even said that today.

 

[links18]

The booth. The referees below can't really tell. That is why a ball that is higher than the top of the uprights is not reviewable. Plus there are no cameras in the area.

So help me out here: The kick last week was really close and looked wide on TV. So what if Phillips would have thrown the flag? Would the refs has buzzed the booth to ask if it was "above the posts?" Would we have then lost a challenge or a time out or would they have just said "sorry can't review that"? If its the latter, what's the harm in throwing the flag? If its wide, its wide-hard to see how it would matter if it was "above the posts."

Starting to remind me of the infamous "I didn't know we could try a free kick with no time on the clock" Chan Gailey response......

 

[JonJon]

Quite your ignorant attempt to stamp out any critical dissent. That's the same mentality that led to the financial meltdown that is going to cause you to lose your job in about 6 months. By the way, we LOST the game last week by 2 points....

Wow......


I agree though. Field goals need to be reviewable. Points are points, and we were screwed two weeks in a row by FG's that may not have been good. I am 97% sure that the FG against Washington was no good.

 

[BigDinAZ]

So help me out here: The kick last week was really close and looked wide on TV. So what if Phillips would have thrown the flag? Would the refs has buzzed the booth to ask if it was "above the posts?" Would we have then lost a challenge or a time out or would they have just said "sorry can't review that"? If its the latter, what's the harm in throwing the flag? If its wide, its wide-hard to see how it would matter if it was "above the posts."

Starting to remind me of the infamous "I didn't know we could try a free kick with no time on the clock" Chan Gailey response......

Neither kick could have been reviewed by Wade.

 

[jimmy40]

Two weeks in a row now we have a FG called good where it was really dificult to judge whether or not it was good from what we saw on TV. Phill Simms claimed in the telecast that FGs are now reviewable. If that is the case, that is a pretty big indictment of the coaching staff that we didn't review that FG last week. What exactly is the rule?

The fans behind the posts inline from where the ball was kicked made no kind of reaction that would indicate it was no good.

 

[Garland powerplay]

It did look bad. Is it me or do the refs know the underdog and try to keep it close?

 

[BigWillie]

So who decides what is "above the posts?"

Technically, it is the sides of the goal posts to which one of the guys is referring. When it goes over there, it is basically a judgment call. And I don't think you would need anyone to tell you whether it went over the top or not, it would be pretty clear if it did.

 

[Hoofbite]

So who decides what is "above the posts?"

The ball. If its above the posts, its above the posts......if not, its not.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

they should be.....

 

[Nav22]

The depth perception we get from the TV angle sucks. The ball clearly went too far right, but we can't really tell whether the ball was behind the goalposts or not when it did get too far right.

I trust the refs who are standing RIGHT under each goalpost in this situation. As horrendous as they may be at times, you'd have to be legally blind to *** up a FG call.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Two weeks in a row now we have a FG called good where it was really dificult to judge whether or not it was good from what we saw on TV. Phill Simms claimed in the telecast that FGs are now reviewable. If that is the case, that is a pretty big indictment of the coaching staff that we didn't review that FG last week. What exactly is the rule?

They are only reviewable if there is no chance that they are wrong. Meaning if it was below the tops of the goal post. It would have to be blatent cheating to have one like that overruled. If it's above the goal post then you cannot review it. This is the biggest *issue*, but they will not review such things.

Nothing a few cameras couldn't handle to prevent the *issues*

 

[Amazing man]

The fans behind the posts inline from where the ball was kicked made no kind of reaction that would indicate it was no good.

I'd be one of those fans. It was close, but it was good.