Comments on: “Controversial?”

By: Mike J

Mike J — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:21:33 +0000

It us literally a moot point now & not worth further argument.

By: Mike J

Mike J — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:47:13 +0000

You won’t convince me. He had the damn ball when he was down on the ground. This rule simply does not pertain.

By: Eye for Detail

Eye for Detail — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:57:19 +0000

Mike, read my last post. This one was absolutely correctly officiated. Rules are rules. Hold onto the ball and there’s no issue. Go to the ground in the process of catching the pass, lose ball, no catch. Simple.

By: Mike J

Mike J — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:35:01 +0000

Eye, Clayton POSSESSED the ball.He caught it with both hands & brought it into his chest. Both feet were down;it was a hook route; he wasn’t jumping–that is what that rule was instituted to address.It was a normal, run-of-the-mill catch, had it been any other team. The refs did overturn the call on the field.If that pass came from Brady or Romo or one of the Mannings, it would have been a routine catch, first down.

By: Eye for Detail

Eye for Detail — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:07:07 +0000

Did you all see the same game I saw? The receiver was touched by the defender before his second foot touched ground (this is indisputible; go back and watch the game; this is a no-brainer). This means that by rule (a rule the owners themselves voted for), the receiver MUST maintain possession of the ball even AFTER he hits the ground. The strip was all part of the same exact action of going to the ground. It all occured at once virtually simultaneous. Bottom line: 1) The receiver failed to secure the ball and therefore did not warrant a reception and down-by-contact, and 2) Tampa had every opportunity to win the game in the final moments but fell short and thus this one replay, which was ruled correctly, did not determine the outcome of the game. One last note: The call on the field, right or wrong, was incomplete. You need absolute one million percent empirical scientific evidence to the contrary in order to reverse a call on the field. The burden of proof to overturn is ALWAYS on disproving the on-field call. It’s tough to swallow when it goes against your team, but it’s time to get the facts and ease up as the anger is misplaced righteous indignation. Come back and get ‘em next week. Looks like a bright Bucs future with the young QB. Stand tall and have faith!

By: jackieb

jackieb — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:03:29 +0000

I heard that! There is serious ref protection going on, and it is so f*^%@#n annoying!

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:11 +0000

A player falling to the ground and losing the ball while attempting a catch is only used to determine possesion. The referee clearly and properly ruled that there was possesion before Clayton hit the ground. Therefore the play was over as soon as he hit the ground, if the ball comes out after that it is not a fumble. This was a bad call and cost the Bucs up to 10 points. Clearly, the Bucs may have run out the clock and not allowed Miami to score again.

The game itself probably will have very little to do with the final standiings. However, the integrity of the NFL itself is at issue when officials make bad calls that determine the outcome of the game. The officials need to be severely reprimanded for not knowing the rules. Even with instant replay they could not get it right. Suspension would be appropriate.

By: Mike J

Mike J — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:33:03 +0000

I posted in NG:Thoughts on Freeman

1, To me anyway, he is a “pretty” QB to watch;

2, the play where there was a melee around him & he just ripped out &
ran for the first was amazing; I don’t know if there is another QB in
the league who could have gotten away;

3, he seems to see the field well;

4, obviously Josh needs to work on ball security, but that is not a
long-term problem;

5, he throws well to the outside, which takes many young quarterbacks
a long time to master;

6, he needs better wide receivers;

7, Freeman is only 21 years old!!

By: Mike J

Mike J — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:25:14 +0000

Only problem w/ this (referee) analysis is, unlike the Bert Emmanuel non-catch,
Clayton HAD the ball before he hit the ground, & & he was down by
contact. This moron is seeing things.
Just an egregiously horrible call.

By: Paul Wiezorek

Paul Wiezorek — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:27:54 +0000

You are correct in your assessment of “the call”. He blew it! Lynch sounded like a p*^%%y regarding this call. Watch a Lightning game and take a cue from the Chief. He calls out a bad call, when he sees one. And this one was so blatantly bad the Bucs deserve an apology. Not that that matters now. That was the worst call I’ve ever seen that had been reviewed by replay.