Coogiguy03
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 28,079
- Reaction score
- 23,714
have a good night buddy
Jebus.
have a good night buddy
Jebus.
The 07 team had a shot. Granted they would have had to play the Undefeated Patriots. Crayton!!!I think about this and the 2014 season pretty often. That was as close as we've been to a Super Bowl since the 90s and since we feel robbed of that play, a lot of us feel like we should've gone all the way as we felt the Packers were pretty much the best team we'd face in the playoffs.
The Dez catch overturn is a dark day for most of us, but this is pure porn for this guy.Instigator
Yeah.The 07 team had a shot. Granted they would have had to play the Undefeated Patriots. Crayton!!!
Maybe it wouldn't be so dark for half of you if y'all actually knew the rule you rail against and realize it was just an unlucky play. I can separate what I wanted to happen from the truth of what did happen and when you all lie about what happened, I merely correct you because I stand for truth, inconvenient and all. You're free to lie to yourselves if you wish and I'm free to torpedo your lies with truth You mad because people won't lie alongside you to make you feel better? Lol.The Dez catch overturn is a dark day for most of us, but this is pure porn for this guy.
He SO loves it.
His favorite topic in this forum….by far
How weird that one holds onto / embraces this no-catch fallacy that was so detrimental to the team that one professes to support? Some kind of weird self-loathing or inner tension with the inability to process the clearly biased NY overstep must be afoot, whatever the reason, it must be corrosive to the soul.That's because like this play, there are rules that govern that situation when it happens. The same "keeping possession of the ball through the ground" requirement applies there as it did here. The going to the ground rule is a subset rule must be followed in the event a regular, upright can't can't be made. Sideline catches have their own sunset rules.
Disagree.Not when you're going to the ground unfortunately. None of that stuff you mentioned matters unless Dez could execute a proper lunger per the rules. He did not.
In other words, "Why won't you lie alongside me? That's part of fandom, you know?" Not mine, sorry.How weird that one holds onto / embraces this no-catch fallacy that was so detrimental to the team that one professes to support? Some kind of weird self-loathing or inner tension with the inability to process the clearly biased NY overstep must be afoot, whatever the reason, it must be corrosive to the soul.
Well the rules disagree with you and others. Would love to see folks actually use them to show how they weren't properly followed instead of just saying "nah" but I think it's quite telling why that doesn't happen. Where are the article exposes that show the NFL acted improperly? I haven't seen those. On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.Disagree.
Heard that voice as well. In regard to officials these guys use in the booth, I’ve always thought Mike was by far the best and there wasn’t hesitation or uncertainty in his voice. That’s enough for me.On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.
This horse has been beaten to dust. You and I have had a couple previous back and forths on this. I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind our opinion many times. There is no point in doing it again.Well the rules disagree with you and others. Would love to see folks actually use them to show how they weren't properly followed instead of just saying "nah" but I think it's quite telling why that doesn't happen. Where are the article exposes that show the NFL acted improperly? I haven't seen those. On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.
He probably works for NFL officiating.This horse has been beaten to dust. You and I have had a couple previous back and forths on this. I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind our opinion many times. There is no point in doing it again.
I think there are a couple things that are quite telling. One is just how much and how hard you regularly, even ten years down the road, resurrect this horse to be beaten some more, and two, how you seem to flat out ignore the subjective aspect to the rule that leaves the play wide open to interpretation. Your entire argument hinges on a subjective interpretation of the play as applied to a poorly thought out rule. which leaves the outcome wide open to that subjective interpretation.
You see it one way, fine. However, it goes beyond arrogant to imply that the arguments of those that see it differently are completely based on emotion/homerism/conspiracy.
There is a video where Romo explains the play & how the Packers were focused on taking Witten & the quick short throws away. So yes, he knew he had man coverage on Dez and felt that was his only option given the pre-snap alignments.Romo knew exactly who he was going to soon as the ball was snapped