Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Football Forum (NFL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Atin who wrote (12001)	1/20/2002 9:31:45 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45639

I haven't read the media stuff about it, but if the rule says what you report, then the call was justified. The real issue is whether he was hit as he was still in the "moving his arm forward and tucking phase"....in which case it is an incomplete pass just like if you are hit while moving your arm forward generally. If he had finished tucking the ball, still had control of it, and was moving on to his next action, and then he got hit, it's a fumble and the Raiders win. My view of the replay was that he was at the end of tucking the ball but not beyond the end of tucking the ball.....and therefore it was an incomplete pass. But even on replay after several minutes, it was one of those calls that could go either way. I think they tossed aside the burden of convincing evidence to overturn the call on the field and just reviewed it as a new call. An incredible game in any event....will be talked about for years if New England wins again next week. EDIT: The referee was quoted as saying the following about his ruling after the game: ``When I got over to the replay monitor and looked at it, it was obvious that his arm was coming forward,'' Coleman said. ``He was trying to tuck the ball and they just knocked it out of his hand.''