Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:56 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:Hilarious. You're the one whining about the call, douche.
What is hilarious is that you guys feel the need to justify that abortion of a call. As if it would somehow make your loss more dignified if you could somehow validate one of the horrible calls made by that crew last night.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:25 pm
by rozy
frodo_biguns wrote:If I'm wrong... I'm wrong. I'm just putting in my $.02 on what I saw.
Hyperextesion.
As I said...
Keep the change.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:26 pm
by BSmack
rozy wrote:frodo_biguns wrote:If I'm wrong... I'm wrong. I'm just putting in my $.02 on what I saw.
Hyperextesion.
As I said...
Keep the change.
Don't forget the bruised kneecap.
sin
BSmack
Winner of the Ben Roethlisberger injury report daily double
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:27 pm
by PSUFAN
BTW: Fraudo is full of shit. Just sayin.
Is that what you think?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:30 pm
by BSmack
PSUFAN wrote:BTW: Fraudo is full of shit. Just sayin.
Is that what you think?
I did provide a link in that post.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05284/586525.stm
Nice to see Fraudo go Bill Frist on that one.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:32 pm
by Mikey
BSmack wrote:mvscal wrote:Hilarious. You're the one whining about the call, douche.
What is hilarious is that you guys feel the need to justify that abortion of a call. As if it would somehow make your loss more dignified if you could somehow validate one of the horrible calls made by that crew last night.
You've got to be kidding me. The only one whining here is you.
"Whaaaaaa those nasty refs stole my blowout"
Everybody else is just pointing out how completely full of shit you are.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:53 pm
by BSmack
Mikey wrote:You've got to be kidding me. The only one whining here is you. "Whaaaaaa those nasty refs stole my blowout" Everybody else is just pointing out how completely full of shit you are.
Hey, if you can't see the difference between interference and what happened last night, that's your problem. Enjoy not making the playoffs.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:14 pm
by Mikey
BSmack wrote:Mikey wrote:You've got to be kidding me. The only one whining here is you. "Whaaaaaa those nasty refs stole my blowout" Everybody else is just pointing out how completely full of shit you are.
Hey, if you can't see the difference between interference and what happened last night, that's your problem. Enjoy not making the playoffs.
Seems like anybody and everybody who actually matters disagrees with you.
But WTF, enjoy continually making an ass of yourself in public.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:18 pm
by frodo_biguns
HAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
PITTSBURGH -- Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has a hyperextended left knee and a bone bruise sustained during a game-winning field goal drive at the end of a 24-22 victory at San Diego on Monday night, but hasn't been ruled out of Sunday's game against Jacksonville.
Damn was I close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bruise one step away from a break!
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
by BSmack
Mikey wrote:Seems like anybody and everybody who actually matters disagrees with you. But WTF, enjoy continually making an ass of yourself in public.
Way to try to deflect that asskicking by appealing to authority. Feel free to continue to ignore the definition of "reasonable opportunity".
PS: Fraudo, you're a fucking moron.
ps: For all the haytas...
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:51 pm
by Mikey
BSmack wrote:Mikey wrote:Seems like anybody and everybody who actually matters disagrees with you. But WTF, enjoy continually making an ass of yourself in public.
Way to try to deflect that asskicking by appealing to authority. Feel free to continue to ignore the definition of "reasonable opportunity".
And what definition would that be? The only one you've provided is that you think he had reasonable opportunity.
Forgive me if I don't consider your opinion to be sanctified (or even bona fide).
Keep trying, though.
I realize that you're determined to have the last word in any and every argument,
and I'm more than willing to keep giving you the opportunity to demonstrate what a complete and utter fool you are.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:03 pm
by BSmack
Mikey wrote:And what definition would that be? The only one you've provided is that you think he had reasonable opportunity. Forgive me if I don't consider your opinion to be sanctified (or even bona fide).
OK, do you honestly think Sproules would have caught that ball had the ball never touched the Steelers defender?
Answer yes and you're a moron.
Answer no and your whole argument about "reasonable opportunity" is blown to hell.
What's your poison?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:14 pm
by BBMarley
BSmack wrote:Mikey wrote:And what definition would that be? The only one you've provided is that you think he had reasonable opportunity. Forgive me if I don't consider your opinion to be sanctified (or even bona fide).
OK, do you honestly think Sproules would have caught that ball had the ball never touched the Steelers defender?
Answer yes and you're a moron.
Answer no and your whole argument about "reasonable opportunity" is blown to hell.
What's your poison?
We'll never know will we... I thought it was shitty call- but after looking at the actual rule- it clearly was a penalty.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:24 pm
by poptart
It's possible (or even very likely) that Sproles would not have even had an opportunity to re-catch his muff, in which case Pittsburgh should have been given the football.
The obvious problem with that, however, is that the defender got too close and the ref therefore could not rule conclusively that Sproles didn't have a reasonable opportunity to re-catch his muff.
The ref really had no choice but to rule that the defender 'interfered' with the receiver.
The defender got himself too close and opened himself up to the possibility that he would get screwed in a case like that.
Sucked for him.
Correct call was made, IMO.
That's how I see it.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:06 pm
by frodo_biguns
BSmack wrote:Mikey wrote:Seems like anybody and everybody who actually matters disagrees with you. But WTF, enjoy continually making an ass of yourself in public.
Way to try to deflect that asskicking by appealing to authority. Feel free to continue to ignore the definition of "reasonable opportunity".
PS: Fraudo, you're a fucking moron.
ps: For all the haytas...
Yes BS... and coming from you, well what can I say?
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:31 am
by BSmack
poptart wrote:It's possible (or even very likely) that Sproles would not have even had an opportunity to re-catch his muff, in which case Pittsburgh should have been given the football.
There is no way anyone can look at that play and say that Sproules would have been able to touch the ball again before it hit the ground. It is simply impossibility unless you suspend the laws of gravity and inertia. A reasonable person would conclude that the reciever had muffed the punt beyond the point of ever being able to regain control.
The obvious problem with that, however, is that the defender got too close and the ref therefore could not rule conclusively that Sproles didn't have a reasonable opportunity to re-catch his muff.
No, the problem is the league doesn't allow for a replay review of that play. A replay would have (and did for the millions who saw it) shown that the ball hit Sproules and bounced forward. Of course, had the ref made that call in the first place,
The ref really had no choice but to rule that the defender 'interfered' with the receiver. The defender got himself too close and opened himself up to the possibility that he would get screwed in a case like that. Sucked for him. Correct call was made, IMO. That's how I see it.
I'm happy the Steelers won. But since they did, this call is a non-issue. Which means I don't think we'll be seeing too many replays during this week. Which means I doubt I can graphically illustrate what I am saying.
The correct call by the rules committee would be to allow a call like this to be reviewed to determine at what point the receiver had lost his "reasonable opportunity".
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:25 pm
by BSmack
I'm watching NFL Network's Week In Review and they have Mike Pereira on explaining that protection for the return man does end if the ball is ruled uncatchable, even if the ball is still in the air.
Even after saying that, he seems to think that Sproules still had a "reasonable chance". I wonder if that has anything to do with following the company line?
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:48 pm
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:I'm watching NFL Network's Week In Review and they have Mike Pereira on explaining that protection for the return man does end if the ball is ruled uncatchable, even if the ball is still in the air.
Even after saying that, he seems to think that Sproules still had a "reasonable chance".
I wonder if that has anything to do with following the company line?
NO
sin,
Doug Eddings
Don Denkinger