what do you think about the instant replay call at the end of the game?

I am still a proponent of instant replay because it allows ofr some obvious mistakes to be corrected. i think the ruling on sunday wasn't instant replay's fault, but the rule itself. people shouldn't be complaining about the replay system or the refs.

here's my whole take on this....

yes...it was a bit of a crappy call.....(hey..they are only human)


BUT!....

if oakland would have done better in other parts of the game....then maybe they wouldn't have been in such a close game...

like...all those passes that rich didn't complete...or the recivers didn't catch...


it's easy to blame something like that...but you really have to look to everything else..


I little leage..i used to play center field.....one day i missed a really crutial fly ball...and we lost the game....BUT...you really couldn't blame me..because the TEAM lost...if the team would have it better.....or would have run better....then we wouldn't have even been in that situation in the first place

Originally posted by Squalo
what do you think about the instant replay call at the end of the game?

I am still a proponent of instant replay because it allows ofr some obvious mistakes to be corrected. i think the ruling on sunday wasn't instant replay's fault, but the rule itself. people shouldn't be complaining about the replay system or the refs.

at first i thought the whole thing was a travesty, and a good reason to junk instant replay. come to find out that the rule states, the quarterback, after bringing the ball down, must make "a football move" before it can be considered a fumble. This is like the reception/posession/fumble rule that governs wide receivers.

one problem with that ... the quarterback, unlike the wide receiver, does not have to establish posession ... they already have posession.

stupid rule ... get rid of it.

but i'm still against instant replay. slows down the game. blown calls are part of every sport. you just have to live with 'em, imho.

In this era of technology IR has a place. It does not really slow down the game that much because coaches only challenge when they think they have a shot because they don't want to burn a time out.
I agree that the rule is stupid. That was a fumble plain and simple. But that doesn't mean shit because the Raiders just couldn't get the job done. Had they recoverd that fumble I say the Pats still find a way to get that game into overtime and win because the Raiders were playing like shit.
As far as the Pats vs. Steelers: Steelers have more weapons and more speed. JB will probably play and the Pats would need to play a near perfect game while the Steelers played a disatrous game. Look for the Steelers in the SB.

Speaking of bizarre rules ... Hugh Douglas was fine 35k by the league for his block on Jim Miller. According the league, the rule states you can't make contact with the quarterback, until he is in "active pursuit".

What does that mean? Unless the guy is running the opposite direction of the play, I would consider him a potential tackler, and he should be fair game to be blocked.

I sure didn't think the Douglas hit was excessive or "dirty" ... and he did not drive him into the ground. That collision was certainly not as violent than most quarterback sacks.

Douglas plans to appeal the fine.