still against the rules and a chicken **** move while the guy is down. i have no problem with shoving the guy back down as he's getting back up, but arguing that this was just a normal play is homerism at its finest.
good for you. those of us with eyes can see that it was a chicken-**** play that deserved the penalty that cost his team 15 yards.
oooh, you got me on a typo...good job! btw, where's the penalty on the defensive player going out of bounds and coming back in to make the tackle? oops, that's not a penalty!
Damnit, why did I have to argue with someone who is more of an adult than me?!? Darn you, Rocketman and you calm headed ways!
My man, I think you need to look at it again closely. There is no forearm thrown to the back anywhere in that video. At the beginning of the video it looks like Harrison is going to give him a forearm, but instead he lands his hand and keeps the pressure on his man for a moment pinning him to the ground, before letting the guy start to get to his feet, when he lands the open palm to his upper chest. He lets the guy get up again before pushing him again when I believe the play was blown dead and Harrison lets up. Somehow I believe if this were any Texan, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
just like somehow if this was a cardinal player doing it to a steeler, you'd see the open palm to the throat and the forearm to the back. i had no horse in this race, fwiw (i mean, i was hoping the cardinals would win, but i like the steelers and definitely like them passing the cowboys). quick, someone report this to clutch!!! i think this is the first time i've ever been addressed this way here.
I was thinking about the punt coverage rule on players leaving the field and coming back...sorry Charlie, didn't know it was so important to you. Harrison was flagged and should have been, I admit that. But people saying he should have been ejected need to watch more football. This stuff happens each week, and the players get personal foul penalties each week.
a) i was just "arguing" with big benito and thought i had a good gotcha. b) i don't think he should've been ejected either. i think the call on the field was sufficient.
It looked a lot worse on TV when they initially showed it. I agree on no ejection, particularly considering it was the Super Bowl and I think officials have to be 100% sure of what happened before ejecting a player. I think it should be subject to a review of some sort anytime a player is ejected.
Except for at least the two calls that 'Zona challenged and won. I'm sure on those two, the stealer nation was complaining. The refs sucked... both ways. The STEALERS struck again. Forward motion, and no review? A guy stumbles into the place holder and draws a personal foul, giving Pitt 4 more downs, closer to the goal... in the Superbowl? Please. Several calls changed that game
bad calls: 1) that roughing the passer, was a bogus penalty 2) why the harrison flag, didnt gave arizona a first down, like they give to pittsburgh, on the roughing the holder ( I dont think he could avoided that, he tried to avoid the kicker, and runs into the holder) and harrison, should be ejected, he threw punches when the cards player was on the ground. 3) the last one was an incomplete pass, at least you have to review it kurt warner is a HOF, he threw 377 yards against the #1 defense in the league, and he has the three first places with the most passing yards in the superbowl, he is a great player, he should come back for at least one year. Troy Polamalu didnt played good, he missed two awful tackles, and he didnt play like he played before. (like in the baltimore game)
Would the free points Arizona was awarded and subsequent nine point swing thereafter qualify as a call that changed the game? I hope you really think the roughing the holder changed the game too since you obviously get more points for a closer field goal, right? Thanks for the laugh. Too bad one of those Arizona challenges that were overturned the officials clearly butchered. Third quarter whenever Farrior blasted Warner -- Warner was awarded an 'incompletion' after flinging the ball at his o-lineman's feet as he was getting hit. Even placing aside the obvious fumble, worst case scenario is intentional grounding. They didn't get that right either. This play, Warner's Hail Mary attempt at the end -- to quote John Clayton: "If it looks like a fumble, it should be a fumble." Besides, what exactly are the Steelers "stealing" if the officials got the calls right after a review? It's not like refereeing an NFL game is something any 'average Joe' can do. NFL referees are imperfect just like anybody else. Fortunately, this kinda-sorta-maybe-might be the reason the league implemented the challenge system in the first place. What they probably didn't anticipate were people like you complaining about getting the calls correct.
1. It was a bad call. 2. The problem is the rule, not the officiating. The call was right, but the rule is the issue. Sort of like the tuck rule. 3. I can see reviewing it, but still photographs show the ball is dislodged before his are is moving forward. Still close enough to review, though.
Who says there aren't plenty of bad calls when it comes to roughing the passer? I've certainly seen them make calls like that before, but I've also seen them let it go. It amazes me that we expect people 250lbs plus to go full speed than stop or change direction on a dime.
