Bungles vs Ratbirds Gameday Thread

The NFL isn't even TRYING to hide their preference for Baltimore in the AFC. Just wait 'til Thursday evening on National Television.

 

Some bad calls by the refs but the Bengals O line lost the game. How do you let a 3 man rush in like that?

 

It's not considered possession until his second foot came down.. and that was in the endzone. When he went down to the ground, he braced his fall with the ball and lost control. I wish it was a TD.. but the rule states he must maintain control and he didn't. Loosing control of the ball was clearly showed in the replay.

 

Thanks for nothing bungles.....I guess the bungles are who we thought they were

 

Sad but true, on all counts.

 

IMHO the NFL needs to revert back to the establishing 2 feet for a completion. At this point, fans don't know what is and what is not a catch. Replay is supposed to be restrained, in otherwords, there must be indisputable evidence to overturn a call. That is not happening. Hines' catch against the Rats was overturned, where was the indisputable evidence? As far as I'm concerned the replay only sprinkled more doubt that the player that fell on him caused the ball to dislodge. The same goes for the Bungholes today, the call on the field was a catch. He had 2 feet down after he established control. What if a player established control, runs across the field, trips over the hash mark and the ball dislodges upon hitting the ground, never being contacted by another player? Is it a fumble or an incompletion? At some point, a number of steps needs to be enough to establish a completion. Say instead of running all the way across the field, the player takes 4 steps then falls to the ground? Does that change anything? 2 steps after control should be enough. If the 3rd step is out of bounds, 2 steps is enough (so long as the player doesn't go to the ground and lose the ball). As soon as the ball crossed the endzone it should end the play as a touchdown. Furthermore, what constitutes indisputable evidence should be clarified.

On another note, if a QB throws the ball beyond the line of scrimmage out of bounds, it should not be intentional grounding. What's the difference if there is a receiver there if the ball goes 30 yards out of bounds or out of the back of the endzone? The receiever doesn't have a snow balls chance of catching the ball. Add in to that the stupid rule that they call the QB in the grasp without bringing them down. A QB that can shed off tacklers like Ben is put at a disadvantage because he could throw the ball away to avoid the sack. If it is out of bounds beyond the line of scrimmage, that should be a legal play.

Just my 2 cents.

 

The Steelers are in this position because they allowed B-more to sweep them, plain and simple! No way the Steelers D should of given up a 92 yard drive to Flacco (or was he Montana on that drive) with less than 3 minutes left on the clock at HOME! The Steelers made their own bed, now they have to sleep in it and HOPE for someone to beat B-more and the Texans and then RUN the table themselves! It is what it is!!!

 

So true. Three men rushing, and Brian Leonard blocks Suggs one on one? The RT just stood there. Baltimore didn't even trick anyone, Suggs was in a 4 point stance. Then on 4th down Leonard went out on a 3 yard curl route on 4th and 17 instead of helping to block the guy who got around Whitworth and sacked Dalton. Wtf, man? Worst 3rd down back ever. I'm glad any of our guys (Moore, Mendy, Redman) would have done much, much better.

However, the refs still cost them a chance to win the game. With the rules (Gresham TD), the review (NOT absolute proof he lost control. There was daylight between his hand and the ball, but he still had it pinned between his fingers and forearm. But the "indisputable evidence" thing disappeared long ago I suppose), and the blow to the head by Suggs that went uncalled.

 

I think he possessed the ball before the endzone, got one foot down in the field of play, the next down in the endzone and then took another step out of bounds. At that point it should have been a TD. I do not understand how this cannot be a TD (and it was called a TD on the field). There was not "undisputable evidence" that he lost control of that ball anyway. Tony Dungee agreed it should have been a TD.

 

I think the officiating is bad, and it seems to go the Ravens way a lot. But I'm not sure about bias so much - there's no reason why the NFL would want the Ravens to win. They aren't a pretty bunch, they aren't an air it out spectacular highlight bunch, and - perhaps above all - they aren't Tom Brady.

I maintain that the complexity of rules about catching and tackling are simply opening spaces up for inconsistence refereeing decisions. And in a game involving two teams, inconsistency will always favour one over the other.

 

If he had caught it in the endzone and immediately fell down and lost it. I would agree he needs to hold on to it, and therefore it is not a TD. But to me, the fact that he was juggling the ball at the 2 yard line, got possession of the ball at the 1 yard line, and took 1.5 steps (Which could be considered to be called a "football move") then from that point to me he is a runner (no different from a RB) who has crossed the TD plane.

Calvin Johnson caught it in the endzone, but since you can't make a "football move" in the endzone you need to keep completion all the way to the ground, which he did not.

Therefore, I would say Grisham had a TD, and Calvin Johnson did not.

 

like you said.. when you make a catch in the endzone, since you can't make a "football move" in the endzone you need to keep completion all the way to the ground. His second foot came down in the endzone. Until the second foot touches down in the endzone, its not a catch. At that point he was already falling to the ground and must maintain control. The rule sucks, but the call was correct according to the rules.

 

ˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ

His first foot in bounds was before the goaline his second foot was into the endzone....2 feet in is a catch they don't both need to be in the endzone. Its a TD!

This whole control to the ground rule to too vague and is forcing refs to botch some calls. I don't think they should get rid of the rule, they just need to further clarify it so refs don't get it mixed up.

 

Gresham not discouraged, says they are the better team.

Even though the Bengals have dropped two straight, losing to the Steelers and Ravens by a touchdown apiece, Gresham was not discouraged.

Even with the loss, the Bengals are 6-4 and still hold the final wild card spot in the AFC.

"In our mind we feel like we're better than those teams," he said. "We have to fix the mistakes, go back to the game plan and analyze it."

 

:bsux: but these smileys should be crying instead. They could have stole that game but for a couple plays.

 

Hey, SteelerJJ is that a throw back jersey in your avatar??