canfan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 0
All I want to know is if its Ok to Call K.J. "Batman" now? :?:
MVP53":3241sgdm said:Maybe that IS what he thought and the reason why he didn't throw the flag.
That still doesn't make those 2 plays, at all, comparable, IMO.
bbsplitter":2j2d0ocw said:This rule is still confusing me. So let's say he had grabbed it, and only gotten one foot in, before going out of bounds. Technically he would not have established possession, with only 1 foot in, and he would have advanced the ball out of bounds while NOT "in possession" of it (technically). So uh, how is that different then what he did?
Hawks46":xnf5sd8p said:Silver Hawk":xnf5sd8p said:2Cool4School":xnf5sd8p said:Who cares? if green bay can get the ball back after one of our O linemen recovered a fumble then we can do it too.
Yup. Exactly.
At least this one got a review.
The GB play didn't even get a review. Just like the AZ "interception" that cost a game 2 years ago didn't even get a review.
That said I honestly don't know why Wright doesn't just fall on the ball. He's halfway into the endzone and obviously pushes the ball out of the end zone. If he falls on it, which he easily could've done, it's the same result. Why not just fall on it ?
MVP53":2zjbd1k5 said:There is no way you can watch that and conclude Earl intentionally batted the ball out of bounds. KJ Wright's was far more obvious. Again, completely different play.
Smellyman":3balfg7b said:Someday they will call a pick play on the Pats, Packers or Broncos.
Until then I won't be freaking out about this call.
The pick plays and blocking downfield gives them advatages all game long on every play.
Calling a penalty on that play would've been a travesty.
Seahawk Sailor":190oi19x said:If, as officials have stated, it's a subjective call based on a play that would not have changed anything on the field if the player had done differently, why the outrage and bickering about it? Nobody bitches about other subjective flags or non-flags. Nobody screams for days when an official rules a pass "uncatchable", thus wiping out a pass interference penalty. Why is this one subjective call/non-call so damned important if KJ's actions, no matter what he did, wouldn't have affected anything?
WilsonMVP":1rbrmddw said:Seahawk Sailor":1rbrmddw said:If, as officials have stated, it's a subjective call based on a play that would not have changed anything on the field if the player had done differently, why the outrage and bickering about it? Nobody bitches about other subjective flags or non-flags. Nobody screams for days when an official rules a pass "uncatchable", thus wiping out a pass interference penalty. Why is this one subjective call/non-call so damned important if KJ's actions, no matter what he did, wouldn't have affected anything?
This...look..it would be one thing if there was a lions player right there in the mix with KJ...but there wasnt...It would be a totally legit complaint if the Lions had a shot to get it...They DIDNT
ringless":1ry5wk7z said:Kam made a great play, and there was other bad calls this week that were just as costly as this one. At the end of the day Calvin is the one to blame. If he protects the ball and lets momentum do its thing the Lions score and more likely than not win the game.
Seahawk Sailor":3r6efe11 said:ringless":3r6efe11 said:Kam made a great play, and there was other bad calls this week that were just as costly as this one. At the end of the day Calvin is the one to blame. If he protects the ball and lets momentum do its thing the Lions score and more likely than not win the game.
Are you saying that a subjective non-call on a play that wouldn't have changed anything if the player hadn't even reacted to the ball was a bad call?