That's my point. Why any time I see something like this for the first time it's going in the Pats favor? Maybe if it hadn't been the Pats it wouldn't have hit me the same way.
why would it be impossible to tell in real time? it is clearly possible to tell in real time. I don't understand how you can confuse that you were unable to tell in real time with the referee who was feet from the play being unable to tell. one has nothing to do with the other.
21 players and most of the refs were standing around like the play was over. Are YOU smarter than all of them?
those players were wrong, so yes, at that moment I was. now your defense depends on people that were wrong? have you never taken a logic course?
Brilliant post... Let me ask fenwyr this....Let's say Colvin never even laid a finger nail on it and it procedded to hit cotchery right off the fingertips and then fell to the ground...Would that be a fumble or an incompletion? Answer: Fumble..So the fact that Colvin's finget tip hit it before Cothchery's makes it an incmopletion?? Unless a stiff wind redirected the ball forward off of it's intial plane than it would've still been traveling backwards and still have been a fumble regardless off who tipped it...
If Colvin was covering Cotch the play would have happened long after the ball was thrown. Totally different situtation. The ball was tipped right after Chad threw it. Yes, on the replay it looked like it was a backward pass, but my point is that it would have been an incompletion call 99 times out of 100. Fine if a challenge changes that, but the real time call was inconsistant with anything I've seen all year.
because it was still a live ball, thus there thinking it was not was incorrect. being incorrect makes them wrong. are serious, do you really not understand that dynamic?
You have JetBlue pissed now; he's making spelling and grammar mistakes galore... :grin: I love this thread
no, it is not different. the rules don't state a length of time or distance the ball has to travel, simply that it is traveling a particular direction. now you are simply making up ammendments to rules that don't exist to attempt to make your point. you don't even care what the rule is, just what you think the rule should be. you aren't even arguing the play anymore, just what you want to play to have been called according to your own NEW rule. but the refs can't be wrong based on your rules that don't exist. the NFL is not bound to your wishes.
BINGO! The rules do not state a length of time or distance, so when a QB attempts to pass but his arm is hit, and the ball travels sideways or backwards it's an incomplete pass? Where do you draw the line? If the QB's arm is hit and the ball doesn't move forward it's a fumble. If that were the case I'd be all for what happened on this play. As it stands, I have never seen this called a fumble unless the ball hit an offensive player or the ground clearly behind the point of the throw.
The call was correct. It was a backward lateral. They need to stop throwing those, or do it out of a shotgun so the receivers are in front of the qb.
I don't agree with the call on the field, but I agree 100% with what you are saying about the play call.
How about we all give you a metaphoric tuck rule by never bringing this up again if you stop trying to win (you won't) this completely ridiculous argument? We're all going to end the day quite a bit stupider for having read this. I'm going to go gnaw on my cubical wall for a while.
Yay! Another person who wasn't interested in the topic of the discussion but had to make an assanine post anyway. Congrats! If you don't want to talk about someones topic, STFU. Otherwise, enlighten us with your wisdom with some logical discussion.
