And apparently the play had already been reviewed by the officials upstairs and TD upheld when Bruce Arians threw the challenge flag so I have no idea what would have caused the guy to think that the play could then not be challenged. He makes a comment, goes apeshit when he doesn't provide a link to backup his odd claim.
Can i sign-up for a year of 'dumb-ass-free' posting? I mean, beyond that short favour you just provided with that guy.
Hey, some people just are looking to get banned. That guy obviously was. While yes some posts by some people are pretty ridiculous... (we have one asking the Jets to sign Case fucking Keenum for evidence) but everybody is entitled to their opinion. I wish everybody was as knowledgable as Cinvis
I wish some opposing fans were as up front as Cinvis. Would get rid of the annoying ones really quickly.
just watched the replay of the game ending sack by Coleman. Piss poor job of blocking by Moore, but he does get a piece of him. As he is going to the ground, he dives at Sanchez's ankles. Helloooo.... Bernard Pollard anyone? Replacements or Regulars, refs in this league suck...
The OP is full of shit. I just rewatched the relevent section of the Packers-Colts game on GamePass, and they never mention the play being unreviewable. The section that you quote about delaying the next snap does not apply to automatic reviews; it applies to normal challenges (hence the reason is is found under the section that says "Coaches' Challenge", not under the "Penalty" section where you found the other part). It basically just means that you cannot prevent a play from happening via a false start, encroachment, etc. then use it as an opportunity to challenge the play that happened before. Otherwise teams might take advantage of the extra time gained from a false start/offsides to review the previous play and decide whether to risk their timeout by challenging. It should have been a 15 yard penalty though.
Yeah, he was smoking something. The sequence of events was completely different. I read about the 15 yard penalty but never saw anything to indicate it being unreviewable.
Even if the play was "unreviewable" (it wasn't), would you really want to win because of a technicality, knowing full well that we actually lost?
It would be shitty on our end to lose because our coach momentarily forgot about a recent rule change, but yeah, I'd still accept a win that way.
Exactly, would you have been pissed off at the refs or your coach? Your coach. Teams (yours and mine included) have celebrated wins off calls where the refs were wrong and been fine.
I'd be a little tiny bit upset with BB, but mostly upset that the rule existed that way. With the changes being so recent, it is understandable for a coach to make that mistake. IMO, it would be an unbelievably harsh penalty to make a game changing play unreviewable simply because something like that slipped a coach's mind. I'd accept that we lost the game fair and square according to the rules as written though.
Yeah, I don't think why the OP thought the rule was like that. Very strict and takes away acutally getting the call right. As a previous poster stated, Rex could have challenged it, taken the 15 yard penalty but kept the ball.
Did anyone besides the mad canuck who got banned actually see BB throw the flag? I know I didn't. I just heard Nantz say they did.
No, I think dude was hitting the BC Bud a little too hard tonight either that or had one too many Labbatt's. More likely booze as I can't imagine anybody smoking a bowl reacting like he did. Nantz was terrible all game, we know he has a hard on for Brady but every ball that was slightly overthrown by Brady was instantly met by nantz saying "that ball was catchable. Perfect example was the overthrow to Hernandez in teh corner of the endzone only for Simms to say "it would have had to be an unbelievable catch by Hernandez to score there"
Good point. The crowd reacted as Bill threw it and Nantz said, but as usual CBS camera crew was slow today
They never showed it, but I do believe it happened. First, Nantz said something like "and a challenge flag is already out on the field". Then for a moment it showed Belichick who was bent over as though he might have been putting the flag back into his sock. Then later Nantz said something like "Even though NE tried to challenge the play, they cannot lose a timeout, since turnovers are automatically reviewed". It's possible Nantz was confused, but it seems unlikely.
