Welcome to PatsFans.com

Something I was confused about

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by NovaScotiaPatsFan, Jan 21, 2006.

  1. NovaScotiaPatsFan

    NovaScotiaPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    On the Ben Watson/Champ Bailey play that should have been a touchback. WE would have gotten the ball at the 20 right?
  2. CTPatsFan

    CTPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Correct. At the Pats 20.
  3. harveyw

    harveyw Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes we would have Nova...but there was inconclusive evidence. Either way, it was a great character play by Watson, the only guy not to give up at the end of the play.
  4. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,028
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

    I don't think the "conclusive evidence" rule should apply when the refs are 30-40 yards away from the play. If the refs didn't see it and don't know what happened, then go to instant replay and decide. This conclusive evidence rule when the refs have no clue what happened is completely bogus.

    You need to amend the replay rules. When the play is so far away from the refs or when no refs can see what happened, they should have the ability to just go to the instant replay automatically to decide the outcome. This is what they do in the NBA. The refs decide to look at the replay, rather than having the coaches issue a challenge.
  5. drew4008

    drew4008 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Obviously...

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>