I'm done with the NFL (1 Viewer)

[SaintsDrunkard]

You know that it's a judgment call. Disagree with the call, but there were no rules broken. It was the official's judgment that Robertson interfered and that's all it takes.

but the play has to meet certain criteria before the official can make a judgement call...one of the criteria is that the ball has to be catchable. It wasn't...so it wasn't a JUDGEMENT call, the call actually was applied contrary to the rules...the call shouldn't have been made because the "catchable" part of the rule is, for realistic people, objective.

That part of the rule, "Catchable" didn't apply so the flag, by rule was illegal.

 

[HailStateSaintsFan]

The PI on Robertson was legit. We would have been screaming for that had the roles been reversed.

He never should have touched the receiver. Robertson had absolutely no reason to because the receiver's feet would've come down out of bounds even if he could have gotten his hands on the ball.

It's not legit if uncatchable. And it was. The one that killed me was watching Laurenaitis getting bear hugged and taken down on the big TD run by Richard.

 

[zatsnzapps]

but the play has to meet certain criteria before the official can make a judgement call...one of the criteria is that the ball has to be catchable. It wasn't...so it wasn't a JUDGEMENT call, the call actually was applied contrary to the rules...the call shouldn't have been made because the "catchable" part of the rule is, for realistic people, objective.

That part of the rule, "Catchable" didn't apply so the flag, by rule was illegal.

Alright, I see where we're missing each other. "Catchable" is what I'm referring to as the judgment part. There is no concrete measure to say whether a receiver can make a catch, so that's where the judgment comes in. From what I recall, officials give the benefit of the doubt toward the catchable side when they have to make that determination.

 

[SaintsDrunkard]

Alright, I see where we're missing each other. "Catchable" is what I'm referring to as the judgment part. There is no concrete measure to say whether a receiver can make a catch, so that's where the judgment comes in. From what I recall, officials give the benefit of the doubt toward the catchable side when they have to make that determination.

I will agree that the "catchable" portion of this rule can be subjective...however, if that guy thinks that ball was catchable, he needs surgery to see if the lobotomy can be reversed...Yao Ming couldn't have caught that ball in bounds.

 

[Greenchillewhodat]

I did that several years ago. Haven't bought a stitch of NFL merchandise since 2012. I watch game streams on the internet to stay up with the Saints and occasionally the Colts, but they get exactly zero of my dollars yearly.

I havent spent a penny since "bountygate" and i refuse to..EVER AGAIN..

 

[SaintJ]

No ref ever gets in trouble for keeping a game exciting.

They all know that their bosses hatehatehate hate the sound of "click" at the appearance of victory formation.

If you've ever worked in a large organization you know that each one has its versions of Code Red.

By the rule it can't be PI if it can't be caught' and as someone else noted even an NBA giant with hops isn't catching that pass in bounds. Usually they rely on defensive holding in those situations but they got too excited to engage in the proper CYA in the heat of the moment.

Can't wait for hockey and basketball.

 

[SaintsDrunkard]

I havent spent a penny since "bountygate" and i refuse to..EVER AGAIN..

I'm with you...I've even started looking for knock off stuff so the NFL is out of the economic chain....only way we can have our cake and eat it too!

 

[Crowley Cajun]

It's not legit if uncatchable. And it was. The one that killed me was watching Laurenaitis getting bear hugged and taken down on the big TD run by Richard.

You saw that too. huh?