KillingtonZone.com

I think the way that the Packers were moving the ball they had plenty of time to come back and score again even if Bryant made the catch.

Coydog wrote:Correct call on a confusing rule. Common sense says he caught the ball, but the letter of the "process" rule and confirming replays show he didn’t. GB finally has a challenge go their way, though it’s gonna be tough to get pass Seattle in Seattle with AR not at 100%.

Weird thing is, if he had stretched a few feet more, the ball would have broken the plain of the end zone and would have been a td.

Wouldn't have mattered if he then dropped the ball or not.

SnoBrdr wrote: Weird thing is, if he had stretched a few feet more, the ball would have broken the plain of the end zone and would have been a td.
Wouldn't have mattered if he then dropped the ball or not.

Yeah, like I said, the rule is confusing. Between GB and Dallas, I'm a Packers fan, but my eyes tell me that was a catch (an amazing catch at that), yet the rule says no.

For the good of the game, that rule surely has to go - doesn't pass the "100 drunks in a bar" test.

SnoBrdr wrote:

Coydog wrote:Correct call on a confusing rule. Common sense says he caught the ball, but the letter of the "process" rule and confirming replays show he didn’t. GB finally has a challenge go their way, though it’s gonna be tough to get pass Seattle in Seattle with AR not at 100%.

Weird thing is, if he had stretched a few feet more, the ball would have broken the plain of the end zone and would have been a td.

Wouldn't have mattered if he then dropped the ball or not.

Not true. By rule, he still hadn't made the catch yet (silly?). Crossing the plane is irrelevant until the catch is made.

I miss the days of "The ground cannot cause a fumble".

Stormchaser wrote:

SnoBrdr wrote:
Weird thing is, if he had stretched a few feet more, the ball would have broken the plain of the end zone and would have been a td.

Wouldn't have mattered if he then dropped the ball or not.

Not true. By rule, he still hadn't made the catch yet (silly?). Crossing the plane is irrelevant until the catch is made.

But in that case, the stretch may have been considered "a football move common to the game" and so the catch would have been made. Who the hell knows though.

Coydog wrote:

Stormchaser wrote:

SnoBrdr wrote:
Weird thing is, if he had stretched a few feet more, the ball would have broken the plain of the end zone and would have been a td.

Wouldn't have mattered if he then dropped the ball or not.

Not true. By rule, he still hadn't made the catch yet (silly?). Crossing the plane is irrelevant until the catch is made.

But in that case, the stretch may have been considered "a football move common to the game" and so the catch would have been made. Who the hell knows though.

What constitutes the beginning and end of the stretch? I had said earlier I could buy the refs calling the stretch (lunge) as a football move, but the refs clearly felt a lunge or stretch includes a landing.

Dickc wrote:I miss the days of "The ground cannot cause a fumble".

The ground STILL cannot cause a fumble BUT you have to CONTROL the PASS first regardless !

Atomic1 wrote:

Dickc wrote:I miss the days of "The ground cannot cause a fumble".

The ground STILL cannot cause a fumble BUT you have to CONTROL the PASS first regardless !

Bryant clearly had the ball FIRMLY in the grasp of his hand as he sailed through the air. To me, that constitutes control. The NFL rules differ, hence my wish to see a return to the old mantra of "the ground cannot cause a fumble"!

Textbook example on how to blow a huge lead.

GB stopped playing after that int at the 5 minute mark.

David Tyree woulda' made that onside catch
Incredible ballgame

The Giants are not in this Super Bowl thus the Patriots have a chance at winning !

Atomic1 wrote:The Giants are not in this Super Bowl thus the Patriots have a chance at winning !

did the giants even field a team this past season?

madhatter wrote:

Atomic1 wrote:The Giants are not in this Super Bowl thus the Patriots have a chance at winning !

did the giants even field a team this past season?

He's just living in the past as that's basically what they have to do with ANY NY sports team.

The EE needs to get back on the roids/PED train or they won't win in the near future.

Altho they do have their star player, A-Roid, back this year, so all should go smoothly.

SnoBrdr wrote:

madhatter wrote:

Atomic1 wrote:The Giants are not in this Super Bowl thus the Patriots have a chance at winning !

did the giants even field a team this past season?

He's just living in the past as that's basically what they have to do with ANY NY sports team.

The EE needs to get back on the roids/PED train or they won't win in the near future.

Altho they do have their star player, A-Roid, back this year, so all should go smoothly.

Yep the Yankees SUCK but can we stay with football here ? Being that " the past " was two of the GREATEST games in Super Bowl history I'm just belaboring the point to a fault , but it still remains fact , " the Patsies " have a better chance at winning because the Giants aren't in it !