Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PatsDeb, Jan 6, 2007.
OMG .....there goes Parcells' head.
I actually feel kinda bad for the kid. I was just so surprised by what happened. No bad karma., please.
oooooops...Romo NO GO!!! What an easy play and it cost Cinci a chance against Denver..and Dallas a continuation in the playoffs....
Where was the ball when Romo was tackled?
The ground cannot cause a fumble....they should have measured for a first down!
He was atleast a yard short of the first.
Man, talk about a short honeymoon.
Wonder what Bledsoe is thinking?
wow i had not thought about that, good point
Yup. Madden and Michaels did not appear to understand (and maybe the refs didn't understand either) that Romo DID NOT need the end zone. He only needed the one. Nevertheless, I think Romo was clearly down well outside the one yard line even if it wasn't a fumble.
I don't think he got to the 1, where he had to be. That must be why Parcells was asking on the sideline, "Was that a fumble?"
I think he was attempting to reach out beyond the 1-yard line (first-down marker) when he went down. Replays from the sideline shows that he would not have got the first down.
the guy has banged jessica simpson and carrie underwood, i dont feel bad for him
I am more pissed because this prevents us from getting a higher pick in the draft.
Hmmmm, I sense a little green monster (and I don't mean a Jets fan).
If you can't convert on what amounts to an extra point, you don't deserve to win the game. That said, I thought reversing the spot on the 3d down was a questionable call. Much as tv replay is great, the linesman is simply in the best position to see that play. I believe he marked the spot where the receiver made the catch -- which was clearly over and behind his head and, on replay, looked at least arguably like it could have been the one yard line. Only when he took it down into his body did he appear short of the line.
I think that was close enough that the play on the field should have stood. While I do think it's MOST PROBABLE that the spot on the field was incorrect, I did not think the replay was conclusive, and the wide variation in what consitutes "clear evidence" depending on the ref is kind of causing some problems in the NFL.
Bottom line, the Cowboys still should have made the kick. But I don't think that call should have been reversed.
agreed, he was definitely short of the one, no need for a measurement.
The refs got the spot right as the Seahawks took over at their 2 yard line instead of the the six.
What a choke though. I can't believe it. Seattle should be out and our pick should be better than it will be. Good grief.
the finish was exciting, but again it was bad play that lost the game more than great play that won it
How , still get no. 22 only mathers if thet make it to the Super Bowl(NO Way).
great example of how weird this game is...
Yup, play on the field was called a fumble, I'm nearly certain. Didn't see the bean bag, but everything else suggested to me that was the call.
a) On Romo's Choke-O hold, if Grammatica had made a little more solid block on Romo's pursuer (#29 I think), instead of just sticking his arms in his face, Romo would not have been caught from behind. The next tackler (drifting out from the goal line) would not have been able to stop Romo short of the first down marker.
b) Romo was stopped at least 2 yards short of the first down.
c) The reversal of the spot call that gave Dallas 4th down at the 1 1/2 yard line was the correct spot. No way that ball ever reached the 1.0 yard line.
d) On that amazing play that was ruled a safety, why was it a catch in the first place? Classic ball-touches-ground-before-receiver-demonstrates-control!!!!
I disagree on (c). I think the ball was further down the field when it was first caught -- over and behind the receiver's head, then when he was tackled. Line judge was standing right there. Not saying I disagree that the spot was probably wrong, just that it shouldn't have been reversed.
On (d), this seems to be a recurring and misunderstand situation in football all year. If the receiver, in the process of catching the ball, is hit and ultimately tackled, he must maintain possession all the way to the ground if (but only if) he is tackled by the player that hit him as the ball arrived. If the hit occurs after the catch, not simultaneous or nearly simultaneous with it, the receiver must only make a "football move" to establish possession.There was an interesting example of this in the earlier game today, where the player was hit as he caught the ball, but then hit by a second defender who dislodged the ball. There it's a fumble too.
Separate names with a comma.