Newpost / newreply revamp Part 1Easy easy post formatting What's everyone here's weekly availability? Is anyone *not* around on weekends?
GTX0 AnnouncementsFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds

The Sports Center

"I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok."

Moderated by - :
Taken from a post in the world forum regarding the 2020 Tokyo olympics
Posted: Posted January 1st by Weid mariomguy

[2020 Tokyo Olympics Mascot]

There are 5 Replies

Izzy or bust.

Posted January 1st by Jet Presto

Her please convince me how tom Brady’s pass was forward motion on the tuck rule play against the raiders. He looked like he was gonna throw it forward but had the ball knocked out of his hand before his hand was on forward motion.

Posted January 1st by Weid man

Not gonna convince you. It was a bad call. There were three angles from the initial broadcast. One made it appear as though the arm was clearly done moving forward when he was hit, which would make it a fumble. A second angle makes it look a lot closer and harder to tell, which would indicate inconclusive evidence to overturn the call. My guess is the officials were swayed by the third angle, which does make it look like the arm is still moving forward when he is hit and the ball comes out. I'm pretty agnostic about it overall. I can see one angle possibly convincing the officials his arm was still moving forward towards his body (hence "tuck rule," and not "forward pass" rule). I can see one angle being jumped on as definitively proving it wasn't moving forward, thus was a fumble. But mostly, I take the approach of inconclusive evidence. I don't think the replays show anything nearly enough to overturn the call.

It was certainly a lot less clear than when the Jets beat the Pats earlier in the year because of the tuck rule.

(People are idiots when they suggest that one rule "made" Brady's career, though, or that somehow, this level of success in New England comes literally from just that one call.)

As for the Raiders being robbed: sure. If that's the route people want to take. I'd remind folks that that game still went into overtime, where the Raiders had every opportunity to stop the Patriots from getting into field goal range. So people are exaggerating just how damaging that call was. The Raiders still had a great shot to win the game, even after that call and the Vinatieri game-tying field goal (itself an iconic kick people forget how difficult it was to make that to tie, by the way).

Posted January 2nd by Jet Presto

I agree it seemed inconclusive every way but I’m gonna bet my life that the refs overturned it just because of the fact that the game was played in New England and it was a white out blizzard and the fans might have started throwing snow balls and my them and storming into the field (remember how in the Jacksonville bs Cleveland game they started throwing beer bottles onto the field because the refs refused to overturn the call, forgot the specific details, and that cost the browns the fame so the fans started throwing shit into the field and I think some revolted against security/police officials). Now with that logic what do you think would happened in the PLAYOFFS in the raiders pats fame at foxburrel stadium in New England in a white out blizzard if the refs had let the call stand as a fumble with under a minute to play? The fans would have revolted and attack the refs and security and would probably cause injuries to them as wrlll as possible fatalities. So the refs didn’t want to put themselves in jeopardy so they overturned the call just to save themselves as well as the raiders players and such. I swear if this game was played in Oakland then the refs would have let the play stand as a fumble and give the raiders the victory which they deserved.

Posted January 2nd by Weid man

That's the craziest excuse. Refs are constantly in a position to theoretically be harmed by fans throwing shit at them. And they frequently overturn calls in big situations even if it will piss off the home crowd. The Patriots have gotten their fair share of awful calls in key situations, even at home. And I think we're overselling the nature of Boston football fans of 2001. Say what you want about Pats fans *now* or other Boston sports teams's fans: the Patriots didn't exactly have a history as a winning organization. Successful years were generally flukes, and people were still riding high on the Brady/Bledsoe conversation. The very idea we were in the playoffs was a huge win for the franchise. I highly doubt the refs chose to overturn it because they "feared for their safety."

Really, they overturned it because it was a confusing rule and the video evidence provided one angle that could have possibly shown them his arm was still moving forward. (I'm not sure if broadcast television got all the same replays at that point, so maybe they had some other angle that convinced them it fell within the tuck rule.)

Posted January 3rd by Jet Presto
Reply to: Taken from a post in the world forum regarding the 2020 Tokyo olympics
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on