NFC Championship: Eagles - 25 vs Cardinals - 32 Game Thread

[Rogah]

If anyone got screwed, it was Philly. The Philly player didn't touch the ball at first, then his feet went out of bounds (hence he is out of bounds). The ball bounced inbounds but then hit him on the forearm, hence the ball is out of bounds, which is considered a kickoff out of bounds, which should have been Philly ball on the 40.

 

[MetalHead]

McNabb starting the "I'm losing" limp already

He should be puking shortly...

 

[zrinkill]

It hit the Eagles player's forearm while he was out. Eagles ball.

No it did not ..... it hit his fingers when he was still in bounds ..... did not touch him afterwards.

 

[fan62]

You guys need to chill. If it did touch the Eagle player, it would still be Philly ball cause it touched him while he was out of bounds.

The eagle player was inbounds when he touched it! AZ's ball - if it was reviewed as it should have been.

If that had been under 2 minutes, it would have been overturned!

 

[DWhite Fan]

McNabb starting the "I'm losing" limp already

McFlabb won't be doing no sideline dancing today:laugh2:
Not to pick on John Elway, but he was pretty good at that "limp" too :laugh1:

 

[The Panch]

no it did not.

Yes it did and it wasnt even close. Nearly his entire foot was on the white line when it grazed his arm.

 

[avaj]

Cards had a plan and was on a mission

So far I think they have excuted everything they had planned

 

[AlcoholicNinja]

No it did not ..... it hit his fingers when he was still in bounds ..... did not touch him afterwards.

Wrong on both accounts.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

A stupid rule saved AZ a wasted challenge. Looked pretty clear that the ball hit the Eagle player's forearm and changed direction, while his foot was out of bounds.

:trophy:

 

[tomson75]

If anyone got screwed, it was Philly. The Philly player didn't touch the ball at first, then his feet went out of bounds (hence he is out of bounds). The ball bounced inbounds but then hit him on the forearm, hence the ball is out of bounds, which is considered a kickoff out of bounds, which should have been Philly ball on the 40.

I don't think it's considered an illegal kick if there is a player responsible for causing the ball to go out.

 

[wileedog]

The eagle player was inbounds when he touched it! AZ's ball - if it was reviewed as it should have been.

If that had been under 2 minutes, it would have been overturned!

He was clearly out of bounds first. The question is whether it touched him at all.

I thought it hit his forearm too, although 1 angle i wasn't sure.

 

[zrinkill]

Yes it did and it wasnt even close. Nearly his entire foot was on the white line when it grazed his arm.

You are wrong.

 

[fan62]

Justice would call for an int for 6 points here!

 

[tomson75]

No it did not ..... it hit his fingers when he was still in bounds ..... did not touch him afterwards.

Nope.

 

[zrinkill]

Wrong on both accounts.

Eagles fan

 

[DWhite Fan]

No it did not ..... it hit his fingers when he was still in bounds ..... did not touch him afterwards.

That is how I saw it aswell. It is non-sense that that play could not be reviewed.

 

[tomson75]

You are wrong.

No he's not. You are.:tongue:

 

[JD_KaPow]

If anyone got screwed, it was Philly. The Philly player didn't touch the ball at first, then his feet went out of bounds (hence he is out of bounds). The ball bounced inbounds but then hit him on the forearm, hence the ball is out of bounds, which is considered a kickoff out of bounds, which should have been Philly ball on the 40.

What are you talking about? It's only a kickoff out of bounds if it goes OOB before anyone touches it. The ball was only OOB because it was touched. The refs got it right.

 

[zrinkill]

Nope.

Yes....

 

[StylisticS]

ROFL@ Demps