|
09-25-2012, 11:39 AM | #321 |
I'm nuts for the place
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Will it hinder ticket sales enough to black out games that would normally be televised?
I mean, it's not a big deal to flip the channel on Sunday to check out the game. But entirely another thing to actually visit the venue and watch the debauchery live and in person. To me, it would have an effect on whether or not I buy a ticket, sit in traffic, pay $9 for a beer, etc.
__________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your ATTITUDE about the problem. |
09-25-2012, 11:59 AM | #322 |
That's a Corgi
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Why didn't they review the play at a minimum? I'd rather drag the game out than end it with questionable calls.
__________________
Port Wine & Claret | British Cars | Welsh Corgi's |
09-25-2012, 12:03 PM | #323 |
Admiral Douchebag
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
I beilve touchdowns in the finals minutes are automatically reviewed....this one just wasn't reversed.
__________________
Thanks Dave, Julian, James, Kelly, Peter, Gerry, Dave, Mo, Frank, Týr and Mr. Mark! |
09-25-2012, 12:05 PM | #324 |
Alpha Zombie Wolf "Sceve"
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Fine me and use the money to pay the regular refs,” Packers guard T.J. Lang
Couldn't have said it better myself.
__________________
|
09-25-2012, 12:07 PM | #325 |
In it to win it
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
|
09-25-2012, 12:30 PM | #328 | ||
F*ck Cancer!
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Need Beads? Need Five Finger Bags? 2 of 3 Requirements for use of the CA Rolodex: 100 posts/ 60 day membership/ participation in trade (trader rating). New members can be added at any time. |
||
09-25-2012, 12:31 PM | #329 | |
Regard Me!
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Quote:
Granted, I've been busy at school and away from a TV all day, so haven't heard anything else since last night.
__________________
Mob Herfin' Since 2006 |
|
09-25-2012, 12:47 PM | #330 | ||
Sultan of Cigars
Join Date: Jan 2011
First Name: Stephen
Location: Where the Pony Express began and Jesse James ended.
Posts: 1,582
Trading: (18)
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-25-2012, 01:45 PM | #334 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Of course the NFL made the statement they did. I have to imagine Goodell realizes it was the wrong call, but he HAS to support the replacements. I love Drew Brees' comments, "Ironic that our league punishes those based on conduct detrimental. Whose CONDUCT is DETRIMENTAL now?"
|
09-25-2012, 02:27 PM | #335 | |
Admiral Douchebag
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Quote:
Scott.....psssst.......Tim Tebow.
__________________
Thanks Dave, Julian, James, Kelly, Peter, Gerry, Dave, Mo, Frank, Týr and Mr. Mark! |
|
09-25-2012, 03:46 PM | #337 |
Admiral Douchebag
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
And thanks to the refs, the loss.
__________________
Thanks Dave, Julian, James, Kelly, Peter, Gerry, Dave, Mo, Frank, Týr and Mr. Mark! |
09-25-2012, 04:30 PM | #338 |
Skol Vikings!
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
I was just trying to get a rise out of the packers fans out there. And I did. It is really easy to pick it apart after seeing the play in slow motion and make a big stink about it. The refs on the field do not have that luxury. At regular speed it looked very much like a simultaneous catch, the ref made the call he thought was right based on the information he had at the time and in accordance with the rule as he understood. The reason I did not put the second part of that rule in there, although I did read it, is that the referee on the field was calling the play a simultaneous catch and thus, a TD for the seahawks and at that point in time the next part of the rule is superfluous. After the TD call was made, it is very difficult to overturn because you cannot overturn possession based on instant replay. You know what I hate? When people say "shame on you".
__________________
[Help out the troops! |
09-25-2012, 04:45 PM | #339 | |
Regard Me!
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Quote:
__________________
Mob Herfin' Since 2006 |
|
09-25-2012, 05:18 PM | #340 | |
Skol Vikings!
|
Re: Packer fan thoughts
Quote:
The fact that no mention is given for simultaneous possession means that it cannot be reviewed, not that it can be. The question of possession is not one that can be reviewed, specifically because it is not on this list of situations that CAN be reviewed.
__________________
[Help out the troops! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|