Here is what pisses me off about instant replay.

[yunghungwell]

Please excuse me if this is a topic that has been discussed before, I'm fairly new to this BB.


For the most part I think that instant replay in the NFL works. I like the coach's challenge rule to keep the game moving along. I don't mind finding out if a guy was out of bounds when he caught the ball. I think it is ok to see if a RB is losing control of the ball before his knee hits the ground. Was the QB's arm moving forward? etc.

Here is what I don't like..."Mr. WR was bobbling the ball when he went out of bounds. No catch." Excuse me? Did the receiver get both of his feet down before going out of bounds? Did the ball ever hit the ground? Horseshit. If the guy doesn't drop the ball and both feet are in, I say catch!

Instant replay is in the game to take out some of the judgment calls that officials make when there is a clear-cut piece of evidence on tape. Judging receivers that are juggling the ball a little takes an on field judgment call and turns it into an on the TV screen judgment call.

Did you happen to see T.O.'s touchdown catch last night. Yeah, the one where he slid into the end zone on his back. There was not a challenge from Mike Tice, but Al Michaels was talking about the play for the next five minutes.

T.O. seemed to go out of bound with his foot, his knee seemed to be down before he crossed the goal line, and according to Al Michaels he didn't really ever have control of the ball.

What? He stood up with the ball in the end zone! The ball never touched the ground! IMO that is a catch. Now argue about weather to spot the ball where his knee hit the ground or where his foot touched the out of bounds line!

This kind of call comes down to which girl is the prettiest and who is doing the looking.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

[Baby Lee]

Problem is, you need possession AND control to register a reception in the NFL. TO got away with one. What if he had batted it into the air and regained control 5 yards out of bounds? It was not until his kne had been down and he had gone out of bounds that he had CONTROL of the ball.

[Saulbadguy]

That was not a Touchdown.

[Craash]

Problem is, you need possession AND control to register a reception in the NFL. TO got away with one. What if he had batted it into the air and regained control 5 yards out of bounds? It was not until his kne had been down and he had gone out of bounds that he had CONTROL of the ball.


What he said.

[yunghungwell]

Problem is, you need possession AND control to register a reception in the NFL. TO got away with one. What if he had batted it into the air and regained control 5 yards out of bounds? It was not until his kne had been down and he had gone out of bounds that he had CONTROL of the ball.


Well, IF he had batted the ball it would be evident that he didn't have control of the ball without the magic of instant replay, slowmo, and telephoto lenses. TO had both hands on the ball.

I am not a TO/Eagles fan. It just hit me on that one play.

That was not a Touchdown.

Agreed.

[dtebbe]

The ball DID touch the ground if you watch closely. That was not a TD.

DT

[jagerdrinker]

That ball hit the ground so clearly, even a blind man could have made that call on replay.

[cadmonkey]

Like baby Lee said, you need both Control of Ball and be In Bounds at the same time.

I could bang a 17 year old girl and say it is legal a year later because she just turn 18. It doesn't work this way.

[Ultra Peanut]

I could bang a 17 year old girl and say it is legal a year later because she just turn 18. It doesn't work this way.Great analogy. ROFL

[J Diddy]

Like baby Lee said, you need both Control of Ball and be In Bounds at the same time.

I could bang a 17 year old girl and say it is legal a year later because she just turn 18. It doesn't work this way.

It doesn't dammit..........................
:banghead: