nfl.com article on the bad calls in Steelers/Giants game

I just found this article on nfl.com titled "New York Giants benefit from two shaky calls by refs":

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...k-giants-benefit-from-two-shaky-calls-by-refs

Regardless of what happened during the game, my favorite line from this article is the last one:

"So two calls led to 11 potential free points for the Giants. It makes the Steelers' comeback victory all the more impressive. And deserving. "

 

the article said "we" thought the fumble should have been overturned wonder who "we" is

 

11 points at best. But they wouldn't have even been in field goal range if not for the phantom PI called on Lewis. Perhaps they would have advanced anyway, but I'm calling it 14. Then there's the block in the back by JPP on Miller. I counted 4 bad calls. 1 bad, 3 stupefying.

I wish everyone with a voice wasn't bound by whatever pressure to bow to the NFL. "Shaky" calls? Why can't we call them what they are?

 

This part of the article is EXACTLY what I'm thinking:

Roethlisberger appeared to regain control and maintain enough possession of the ball to throw it forward on the play.

But all of the pundits are ignoring it. I do agree that the ball was knocked loose and it moves, but he did regain control and have control of it when it went forward. If you watch the video Bens hand actually turns inward as its going forward and the ball does too. This tells me that his hand is indeed controlling the ball. I just don't understand how you can look at that and say otherwise.

 

Why are they even saying "regain"? When did he lose it? His arm got hit and his arm, hand, and the ball all wobbled, but he still had control of the ball. There's no rule that says if your arm is moving because somebody hit it, you must have lost control of the ball. He never for a millisecond lost control with his hand. It was in there as solid as could be all the way until it squirted out at the end of his throwing motion.

 

yes only way is a fumble when the arms go forward is when the hand is empty , arms went forward ball was throw forward is an incomplete

 

I disagree that the ball never moved. It did when his arm was cocked all the way back. Slightly, but it moved. But the fact his hand and ball move together later in the motion says that at that point he was in control of it.

 

Then you have a putz like this moron posting articles,

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... --nfl.html

this "writer" and i use the term loosely has no clue what he is talking about.

 

Check this pic. You can clearly see the indentation of Bens thumb into the ball. In order for that to occur he HAS TO BE IN CONTROL of the ball. Not only does he need pressure from his thumb, but he needs opposing pressure on the ball to create the indentation.

 

Mike Pereria disagrees with him:

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/265216484773593088

 

That's good stuff, but it shouldn't be necessary. I don't understand why the original footage doesn't have 100% of the people convinced. It's so clear. It's like showing them a picture of an umbrella and hearing back that it was a picture of a dinosaur.

 

And if its any consolation, Mike Pereria thinks it was incomplete too

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/265220171428417536

But what was funny was listening to NFL Radio today, Phil Simms was talking to Pat Kirwan and saying that he thought it was incomplete and called someone from the NFL during the commercial break to get an explanation and the person told him to go easy that it WAS the right call. He then came back after the break and changed his view.

 

I agree 100%.

Its ponderous to me how anyone can watch the replay and see any different. I consider myself a pretty fair minded person and understand some people have differing opinions and can usually see their POV, but not on this one. Like you said, Im looking at a lamp and Levy is calling it a dinosaur.

 

Thats what I thought too. Said he talked to someone from the NFL and they told him (don't quote me) to go easy. It may not be an exact quote, but it was conveyed to him not to go on about it, because it was the right call.

 

Okay, so all us conspiracy nuts are right. But why would he go on the radio and admit that? Doesn't it kind of mess up the whole point? I can guarantee right now that if someone asks him about this on TV, he'll backtrack just like he did about the play. It shouldn't be hard for him, considering he didn't seem to mind calling a lamp a dinosaur. Once you go that stupid, nothing's a challenge. Ask Joe Theismann.

Maybe our dear Phil is having a raging internal battle of ethics. God speed.

 

I really wish I could find the audio again just to verify EXACTLY what I heard. But I know it made me go HMMMM. Im not into conspiracies, but it was definitely an enlightening remark.

 

If nothing else maybe some good comes out of it and Ben at least doesn't give up on the play next time.

No Whistle = HUSTLE

 

The only thing Ben would have done if he kept playing is get his head ripped off. I'm glad he stayed out of it.

 

Do people actually go to Yahoo for sports? I thought Yahoo folded years ago

 

lol I was waiting for you to post. It's not surprising though. Companies always try to silence those speaking out against them.

 

I'd be interested in hearing this if you can find it and post it.

 

What a moron (first article). Since when is it against the rules to want to inflict pain on the opponent? He needs to learn the definition of hurt vs. injure. Also, I guess they expect players to disobey the laws of physics to obide by the rules of football??? How do you stop yourself when you are committed to a hit and a converging player breaks up the play a fraction of a second before you hit the player?

 

We all know Brady would have got the call