Super Bowl LVII game thread: Chiefs vs Eagles ***NO Dak POSTS!***

Cowboys1966 said:
Rodgers? Lol. He is done as being an elite quarterback… He’ll hang around for a while… I hope he actually hooks onto a great team and does something next year as I like him.
Click to expand...
Done as an elite QB? Wow, that happened fast. He was just the league MVP last season. Poor guy must have an illness or something.
 
GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) — Rihanna was pregnant with her second child as she performed her Super Bowl halftime show Sunday.

The singer’s representative confirmed the pregnancy shortly after she ended her 13-minute set at Super Bowl 57. She hovered high at times as she performed a number of hits including “We Found Love,” “Diamonds” and “Work” during a halftime break between the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles at the State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

The baby bump that was visible in the tight clothes she wore under her baggy red jumpsuit set off a wave of social media speculation that she might be pregnant again.

Rihanna, 34, has a 9-month-old son with rapper A$AP Rocky.

During her media preview Thursday, Rihanna said she was initially unsure about taking on the challenge of performing during a time when she was three months postpartum and wondered “should I be making major decisions like this right now? I might regret this.”

https://apnews.com/article/rihanna-...-performance-b76d81cb36b5d07b50df7f89285c51a2
 
Chuck 54 said:
You’re crazy, in my opinion. Rodgers is 100 times better. I don’t think he will ever be the best. He’s not even in the top 3 of Eagles QBs over time. We will see in years to come. Aikman is a great example. Did great things for us, but when his OL weakened and Irvin was gone, he wasn’t very good.
Click to expand...
Ruh Roh Raggy !!!!!!! (Scooby Doo voice)
 
Halftime show was one of the worst ever, I'd rather drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log then experience that again
 
RustyBourneHorse said:
On one hand, I'm happy that the Eagles lost. On the other hand, that holding call was egregious, and game changing. So, I've decided to be a class act and concede my jersey bets with my Godfather and roommates. It's not fair, imo, to end the bet in the tie that I had with my Godfather as things could've changed if not for that.
Click to expand...
Hey they owed us one Rusty, remember that legitimate fumble - KC recovered and the Refs called it back and called it an incomplete pass? :facepalm: That was BAD! Talk about a game changing break. They might be able to get by with that by a technicality in the rule book but that absolutely stunk. The receiver had clear cut possession and total control for plenty of time but the Refs pulled a fast one and gave him a break anyway.
KC won that game fair and square, even steven. ;)
 
JohnnyTheFox said:
Halftime show was one of the worst ever, I'd rather drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log then experience that again
Click to expand...
I agree JF. Those dancers acted like they had a terrible itch that they couldn't scratch! :laugh:
Amazing what some people call talent.
 
Buzzbait said:
Hey they owed us one Rusty, remember that legitimate fumble - KC recovered and the Refs called it back and called it an incomplete pass? :facepalm: That was BAD! Talk about a game changing break. They might be able to get by with that by a technicality in the rule book but that absolutely stunk. The receiver had clear cut possession and total control for plenty of time but the Refs pulled a fast one and gave him a break anyway.
KC won that game fair and square, even steven. ;)
Click to expand...
Lol it was not a legitimate fumble, close yes, but if it was what you say it was then they would not of overturned it. ‘Plenty of time’ … like a 1/4 of a second. Bang bang plays like that are not completions.

That game was a coin toss game. That last penalty marred what could’ve been an all-time classic. Yes it was a penalty… Technically… But one which hadnt been called much the entire game…Then they call it at the end? KC would’ve likely still won, but it would’ve been fun to watch the drama…And it had the potential to be one of the best Super Bowls ever. If that was us and not Philly you would be singing a different tune.
 
Cowboys1966 said:
Lol it was not a legitimate fumble, close yes, but if it was what you say it was then they would not of overturned it. ‘Plenty of time’ … like a 1/4 of a second. Bang bang plays like that are not completions.

That game was a coin toss game. That last penalty marred what could’ve been an all-time classic. Yes it was a penalty… Technically… But one which hadnt been called much the entire game…Then they call it at the end? KC would’ve likely still won, but it would’ve been fun to watch the drama…And it had the potential to be one of the best Super Bowls ever. If that was us and not Philly you would be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...
You sound like a eagle fan (maybe not) and if so then it would be a total waste of time to argue anything that didn't favor the eagles. My argument was not as you portrayed it. I allowed that it was a legal call by a "technicality" in the rule book, that technicality being the requirement to "make a football move." That's all that was lacking in that catch. He caught that ball and had full perfect control of it. He hesitated and started to turn, but the ball was knocked loose before he completed any steps that could've been classified as a football move.
IMO that "football move" requirement is stupid in the sense that technically you could catch the ball and hold it for 30 seconds or more with full control before fumbling and they could STILL call it an incomplete pass because you didn't make a football move like running 1 or 2 steps. My issue was not with the call, it's with the wording of the rule itself.
Oh BTW you support a technicality in that football catch, but not in the holding call which was just as legal a call as the other case?

I stand by the statement that KC won that game fair and square and they earned it.
 
Last edited:
Buzzbait said:
You sound like a eagle fan (maybe not) and if so then it would be a total waste of time to argue anything that didn't favor the eagles. My argument was not as you portrayed it. I allowed that it was a legal call by a "technicality" in the rule book, that technicality being the requirement to "make a football move." That's all that was lacking in that catch. He caught that ball and had full perfect control of it. He hesitated and started to turn, but the ball was knocked loose before he completed any steps that could've been classified as a football move.
IMO that "football move" requirement is stupid in the sense that technically you could catch the ball and hold it for 30 seconds or more with full control before fumbling and they could STILL call it an incomplete pass because you didn't make a football move like running 1 or 2 steps. My issue was not with the call, it's with the wording of the rule itself.
Oh BTW you support a technicality in that football catch, but not in the holding call which was just as legal a call as the other case?

I stand by the statement that KC won that game fair and square and they earned it.
Click to expand...
Consistency. They should call everything consistently. They don’t. And that applies to what a catch is as well I guess.
 
Cowboys1966 said:
Lol it was not a legitimate fumble, close yes, but if it was what you say it was then they would not of overturned it. ‘Plenty of time’ … like a 1/4 of a second. Bang bang plays like that are not completions.
Click to expand...
You're right. When it's that quick, they usually call it incomplete. Years ago, if you caught the ball and had two feet down, that was a fumble. Possession is possession. Whether it be for a second or 10 seconds. What I didn't like is when the ref said he never had possession, when in fact he just didn't have possession long enough.
 
Buzzbait said:
You sound like a eagle fan (maybe not) and if so then it would be a total waste of time to argue anything that didn't favor the eagles. My argument was not as you portrayed it. I allowed that it was a legal call by a "technicality" in the rule book, that technicality being the requirement to "make a football move." That's all that was lacking in that catch. He caught that ball and had full perfect control of it. He hesitated and started to turn, but the ball was knocked loose before he completed any steps that could've been classified as a football move.
IMO that "football move" requirement is stupid in the sense that technically you could catch the ball and hold it for 30 seconds or more with full control before fumbling and they could STILL call it an incomplete pass because you didn't make a football move like running 1 or 2 steps. My issue was not with the call, it's with the wording of the rule itself.
Oh BTW you support a technicality in that football catch, but not in the holding call which was just as legal a call as the other case?

I stand by the statement that KC won that game fair and square and they earned it.
Click to expand...
Technically, by the wording of the rule, it was a catch. Turning up field is considered a football move. It's an example listed in the rule book. He caught the ball, with two feet down, facing parallel to the line of scrimmage. When he was hit, he was facing perpendicular to the line of scrimmage. The rule doesn't require extra steps. More steps are just one example of a football move.

It also doesn't necessarily require an actual football move either. Just enough time to complete one. I don't think anyone would suggest that 30 seconds isn't enough time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 99 more.
Total: 1,454 (members: 199, guests: 1,255)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,448
Messages
13,875,294
Members
23,791
Latest member
mashburn
Back
Top