REFS: 2, Bengals: 0

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:21 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:2. Michael Clayton's "TD" WAS NOT a TD- end of story.

Yea it was. Unless catching the ball, taking two steps and extending the ball over the plane of the end zone doesn't mean TD in your world.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:42 pm

The replays I saw on NFL.com didn't show indisputable visual evidence sufficient enough to overturn the INC call made on the field.

Bottom line: Incomplete pass.

My .02

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:53 pm

Litsen you fat fucking plagerizer. IT was a TD! The guy CAUGHT the ball then extended the ball over the goal line.

You continue to show your ass. Your team stinks, your life probably stinks, no one likes you....dude just end it.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:33 pm

poptart wrote:The replays I saw on NFL.com didn't show indisputable visual evidence sufficient enough to overturn the INC call made on the field.

Bottom line: Incomplete pass.

My .02

Maybe the English subtitles got in your way? What I saw was a guy who established possession, took two steps towards the goal line and reached forward to break the plane with the ball. Both Paul and yourself fail to offer an alternative "theory" as to what was happening.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:46 pm

He bobbled the ball initially.
As he was moving toward the goal line it was not VISUALLY CLEAR that he had possession of the ball without it continuing to move about ...... because his right arm obstructed the view.
He then dropped the ball at the end of the play.

It is my BELIEF that he DID possess that ball and make a legit catch and TD, but I saw no clear visual evidence to support what I BELIEVE.

Gotta stay with the call on the field in this case.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:53 pm

1 - The call on Smith was BS. He did nothing wrong.

2 - Bsmack is right. Catching it, taking two steps and extending it over the goalline is considered a catch in my book.

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:39 pm

BSmack wrote:
KC Paul 3.0 wrote:2. Michael Clayton's "TD" WAS NOT a TD- end of story.
Yea it was. Unless catching the ball, taking two steps and extending the ball over the plane of the end zone doesn't mean TD in your world.

Excuse Chief fan. He saw, what he thought, was about every which way you could score a TD yesterday.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:10 pm

Mississippi Neck wrote:Excuse Chief fan. He saw, what he thought, was about every which way you could score a TD yesterday.

RACK!!

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:57 pm

fat copy cat fuck: He completed a football move had the ball against his chest then extended it across the plain. Then the ball hit the ground and came out. It was the correct...evidenced by the CORRECT call.

A.C. Crut · Post by **A.C. Crut** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:30 pm

I was at the game yesterday and yes the roughing the passer call was a gift, peeps in my section agreed on it. However, we saw NUMEROUS plays where McFarland, Spires and Rice were being held and flat out taken down and no holding was called. Refs won't admit it but it was a make-up call.

Clayton's TD was a legitimate score, end of story, If you can't see that you don't know football.

There was a call that I still don't understand. Gradkowski throws what appears to be an interception, Gradkowski makes the tackle and gets flagged for facemask, personal foul 15 yard variety. Upon further review there was no interception, Bucs get the ball back but the facemask penalty was enforced against the Bucs.

So, the INT never happended yet the facemask on a play that never happened (the refs put the time back on the clock too) gets enforced.

Is it because it was a personal foul?

Glad the Bucs got their first win, next three are against Philly, NYGiants and Nawlins, tough shed-jewel some, much.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:45 pm

Here it is guys...

[video width=450 height=450]http://www.youtube.com/player2.swf?vide ... BYQCxSM_MF[/video]

At least until You Tube yanks it.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:05 pm

Cicero wrote: 2 - Bsmack is right. Catching it, taking two steps and extending it over the goalline is considered a catch in my book.

You fucking dolt.
What part of tart's post above do you not understand? Idiot, idiot, idiot.

You just don't get it and by the looks of it, never will.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:08 pm

IMO, douchebag, it was a catch and arguably the best referee in the game thought so too.

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:09 pm

the TD was a TD, but i think the Smith Roughing the passer on a sack caused the D to just give up, Im starting to lean towards the NFL is fixed people. . FUCK!

that stadium was fucing empty..

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:12 pm

poptart wrote:He bobbled the ball initially.
As he was moving toward the goal line it was not VISUALLY CLEAR that he had possession of the ball without it continuing to move about ...... because his right arm obstructed the view.
He then dropped the ball at the end of the play.

It is my BELIEF that he DID possess that ball and make a legit catch and TD, but I saw no clear visual evidence to support what I BELIEVE.

Gotta stay with the call on the field in this case.

The right arm does not obstruct on the end zone view. He clearly caught the ball.

A.C. Crut · Post by **A.C. Crut** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:22 pm

At opening kickoff the stadium was full. A lot of people will leave their seats during the game and move to the standing areas next to the pirate ship and at the opposite end of the stadium.

Also, it was 90+ degrees, didn't keep me from staying until the end but a lot of people in the club section moved inside for a/c and to watch on the big screens.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:22 pm

The touchdown reversal was the right call but that roughing the passer penalty was an absolute joke.

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:26 pm

Funny shit, actually if the Bengals were as good as they were hyped should the game have been as close as it was? I was at the game also and Crut hit it on the head. Keep blaming the officiating though....

. And out of curiosity why do you actually care about this Pauly ? Trade in your Rams gear for Bengals attire now ?

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:16 pm

Figures SingSingatti would be done in by anything resembling an authority figure.

How many scouts do you think Marvin had down in the "OB" the night before watching tha U?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:57 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:How in the FUCK did Justin Smith's sack of Gradkowski earn him a roughing the passer penalty????

Just saw the replay. That dumbfuck head referee Johnny Greer is the one who threw the flag, and there's your answer. I'm all for affirmative action, but that guy has no business whatsover being in charge of an NFL game.

Rack Justin Smith, a good 'ol Mizzou boy.

Michael Clayton's "TD" WAS NOT a TD- end of story.

Never saw that replay, but if that flag doesn't get thrown for roughing the passer, the point is moot.

Please to explain how that draws a flag, yet the hit on a sliding Trent Green get's a pass.

That's messed up.

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:17 am

Mississippi Neck wrote:
BSmack wrote:
KC Paul 3.0 wrote:2. Michael Clayton's "TD" WAS NOT a TD- end of story.
Yea it was. Unless catching the ball, taking two steps and extending the ball over the plane of the end zone doesn't mean TD in your world.
Excuse Chief fan. He saw, what he thought, was about every which way you could score a TD yesterday.

RACK

but Cowboy fans still SUCK!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:57 am

BSmack wrote:
poptart wrote:He bobbled the ball initially.
As he was moving toward the goal line it was not VISUALLY CLEAR that he had possession of the ball without it continuing to move about ...... because his right arm obstructed the view.
He then dropped the ball at the end of the play.

It is my BELIEF that he DID possess that ball and make a legit catch and TD, but I saw no clear visual evidence to support what I BELIEVE.

Gotta stay with the call on the field in this case.
The right arm does not obstruct on the end zone view. He clearly caught the ball.

Clearly caught the ball ... ? .

You THINK (or want to think) that he caught the ball.

Bri, I heard the Buc broadcasters yelling, "he took a step, ..... he took TWO steps, that's gotta be a touchdown."
I was not impressed.
Hey, the the ball was not initially secured, and that was seen from the side view.
It is NOT visually clear that he had security of the ball before crossing the goal line, and the end zone shot does not provide indisputable evidence either.
Pull your fucking head out of your ass.

You know the drill.
The system honors the call on the field.
The burden of proof is on the one seeking to overrule the on-field call.
Indisputable visual evidence is NOT seen on the replays.

Horseshit call, EOS.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:27 am

Somebody call the Waaaaaahhhmbulance for Pussy Paisan Paul. The fucker's mangina is looking like a cherry popsicle sitting in the sunshine after that ass raping via the Steelers. Fucking cunt.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:13 pm

bri and sissyroo need to pay a li'l more attention to 'tart's posts on this subject. Couldn't be laid out any more concise.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:15 pm

Ken wrote:bri and sissyroo need to pay a li'l more attention to 'tart's posts on this subject. Couldn't be laid out any more concise.

Tart should pay a little more attention to the replays. The end zone view of the catch renders his points moot, as the right arm does not obstruct from that angle.

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:39 pm

I'm curious, is the only video feed you have seen been via the internet Pop's, and Ken? I VDR'd this and I am trying strongly to see this a NON touchdown... sorry, I can't. And trust me at 1-4 it is not my homerism. Sorry, just had to chime in...

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:29 am

KC Paul 3.0 wrote: Mmmmmmm.....foooood........

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:50 am

Yes, internet, Bucmonkey.

Do think the replays provide indisputable visual evidence that he has complete control of the ball with 2 feet down ... ?

Qbert · Post by **Qbert** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:29 am

poppy

fwiw

it looked good to me; plus, the rest of the Bar that was watching it in Toledo.

it was a "BULLSHIT--->that's a Touchdown reaction." then it was reviewed...and overturned.

granted...there's a buncha STOOLERFans in that Bar...but; where's a BROWNSFan supposed to go on any given Sunday????

(if you were HERE--->you could relate!)

it WAS a Touchdown.

horse before the cart comment...the roughing call on Gradkowski was "sketchy at best".

but, if you're the BENGALS...you can't leave yourself in the position to have that sort of thing happen to you.

Take Care of your Business.

The Bengals...didn't.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:00 am

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:
WhosMyBitch wrote:Somebody call the Waaaaaahhhmbulance for Pussy Paisan Paul. The fucker's mangina is looking like a cherry popsicle sitting in the sunshine after that ass raping via the Steelers. Fucking cunt.
WOW.

The continuous melts that I cause you (and a few others) to perform is suddenly VERRAH worth the price of admission.

WhosMyBitch's latest melt in 5....4....3....2....1.....

Let me predict your next post. "See! He replied. Tha-that's a melt!"

Who's the one starting new topics crying about the referees again?

Who copies and pastes other people's posts on other boards?

Who has been voted board bitch time and time again?

Fattie!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:08 am

Q,

The ball arived to Clayton and he then took 2 steps and dove for the endzone.
The first step he took was with his left leg.
At the time of that step it is not visually conclusive that he has secured the ball.
I'd challenge you to look at the replay and POSITIVELY determine that he has possession at the point of step #1.
By step 2 (right foot down) it appears he has it secured.

Further, the ball comes out at the end.
Looking at either angle, is it possible for you to be CERTAIN that the ball is not slipping from his control before he crosses the plane of the endzone ... ?

Qbert · Post by **Qbert** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:54 am

like i said poppy...it looked GOOD to me on all reviews. (in the bar, on sportcenter, on nfl network); PLUS, bucmonkey has on DVR.

it was deemed GOOD.

why are you and i debating a game where a superior TEAM didn't do ANYTHING to beat up on a team with a Rookie QB anyways???

(uhhh....yeah...and we care for neither.)

i like Gradkowski...yeah, he's from Toledo...but, he's short.

c'mon....you haven't reached ROCK BOTTOM yet!!!!!

send Dennis Green a Pink Slip this week....and you might feel better!

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:25 pm

poptart wrote:Yes, internet, Bucmonkey.

Do think the replays provide indisputable visual evidence that he has complete control of the ball with 2 feet down ... ?

Yes you mouthbreathing cockmonkey. Anybody who saw that game saw 5 minutes worth of replays showing conclusively that the call on the field was WRONG. Jesus, the last time I saw that many replays a black guy was getting beat up by LA Cops. Now, are you going to address the end zone angle that renders your objections moot, or are you going to continue to rage against the comming of the light with your Darth Raider Light Sabre?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:14 pm

Brian, Mr black and yellow glasses wearing jerk off,

I already gave my take on the end zone angle replay.

Conclusive visual evidence must be present to overrule a call made on the field.
The league has set the standard for reversal of a call very HIGH.
You don't want to acknowledge the definition of conclusive, do you ... ?

Conclusive: putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability.

Do you understand what irrefutability is ... ?

To reverse a call made on the field it must be 100% visually clear that the call was wrong.

Those replays don't meet the standard set.

Myself, I THINK Clayton made a catch and score.

But by the standard the league has set, however, I sure as hell couldn't come out from the replay booth and say so with 100% certainty.

I'd say it's at about 98.3% that he made the catch and scored.

Mike Carey: After reviewing the play, the receiver had control, 2 feet down, and extended in for the score.

....... he thinks ...... very strongly.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:30 pm

poptart wrote:I already gave my take on the end zone angle replay.

If you can look at that end zone angle and not see conclusive evidence, then might I suggest a home in Simi Valley?

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:48 pm

He'd fit right in. Simi is loaded with Raider fans and born agains.

T1B

REFS: 2, Bengals: 0

Re: REFS: 2, Bengals: 0

Re: REFS: 2, Bengals: 0

Re: REFS: 2, Bengals: 0

Re: REFS: 2, Bengals: 0

Re: REFS: 2, Bengals: 0