- Thread starter
- #1
Schmoopy1000
When all else fails, Smack em' in the Mouth!
Oh Man this show was great. They had Tom Brady & Charles Woodson watching it on Tom's couch. They cracked me up through the whole thing.
I saw a part of that. I'm not a Pats or a Brady hater, but damn it to fuck that was a fumble by Brady on a strip-sack by Woodson.Oh Man this show was great. They had Tom Brady & Charles Woodson watching it on Tom's couch. They cracked me up through the whole thing.
I saw a part of that. I'm not a Pats or a Brady hater, but damn it to fuck that was a fumble by Brady on a strip-sack by Woodson.
I completely agree. It was a fumble, but last time Woodson was interviewing Brady (years ago) boy that question was an awkward silence.I saw a part of that. I'm not a Pats or a Brady hater, but damn it to fuck that was a fumble by Brady on a strip-sack by Woodson.
Yeah, Woodson's never gonna let it go and regardless what anyone says to Brady about it. He can just shrug his shoulders n smile. But yea, its cool to see em joke about it. And Pats fans can always fall back on that terrible call against Sugar Bear Hamilton back in the 76 playoffs. That was as huge a break for Oakland as the tuck rule was for the Pats. That cost the Pats what I think would've been a legit shot at winning a SB title that year.I completely agree. It was a fumble, but last time Woodson was interviewing Brady (years ago) boy that question was an awkward silence.
It was cool to see them be able to joke & have fun with it now even though I dont think Woodson will ever let it go LOL.
They had me laughing though through the whole show.
Probably 'cuz yer fly was unzipped and they could see yer lil' acorn-peckerI remember watching that game in the owners' lounge at the ski hotel (large room with a TV and couches, actually) when that play happened, initially ruled a fumble and a recovery by Oakland. This was in Maine, so it was a New England crowd. A few people got up to leave, thinking the game was over. "Sit down," I said. "They're going to rule his arm was moving forward. Incomplete pass, Patriots ball."
The looked at me kind of funny, but took their seats.
I still remember thinking at the time, the NFL hates the Raiders. Questionable calls always go against them. And so it was.
After the game, they walked out and looked at me with a different kind of funny.
well that wouldnt surprise me.I remember watching that game in the owners' lounge at the ski hotel (large room with a TV and couches, actually) when that play happened, initially ruled a fumble and a recovery by Oakland. This was in Maine, so it was a New England crowd. A few people got up to leave, thinking the game was over. "Sit down," I said. "They're going to rule his arm was moving forward. Incomplete pass, Patriots ball."
The looked at me kind of funny, but took their seats.
I still remember thinking at the time, the NFL hates the Raiders. Questionable calls always go against them. And so it was.
After the game, they walked out and looked at me with a different kind of funny.
EEEEEWWWWWWWWWW!
You misspelled Bruce Jenner.
Logically, it was absolutely a fumble. I get why they made the rule the way it was set at that time. I think they wanted to avoid controversy over officials having to make judgement calls over "was he tucking it or throwing it?". So, they just declared that "any forward motion what so ever" is a pass attempt.I completely agree. It was a fumble, but last time Woodson was interviewing Brady (years ago) boy that question was an awkward silence.
It was cool to see them be able to joke & have fun with it now even though I dont think Woodson will ever let it go LOL.
They had me laughing though through the whole show.
It was a fumble, and there should be no TUCK rule.I honestly still couldn't tell you if that was a tuck or a fumble... Glad it went the Patriots way for sure but I can see why everyone else said fumble
It was a fumble, and there should be no TUCK rule.
If a player losses a ball without being down by contact, it's either an incomplete pass or a fumble
I get it, but it should be either an incomplete pass if the hand is going forward or an fumble if the QB losses the ball after changing his mind on passing it. Maybe I could see intentional grounding. To me the tuck rule is based on the premise the QB decided to hold onto the ball, but he losses controll of the ball while still in live play. That is in dact a fumble.To be fair they didn't just make up the Tuck Rule for that game
I get it, but it should be either an incomplete pass if the hand is going forward or an fumble if the QB losses the ball after changing his mind on passing it. Maybe I could see intentional grounding. To me the tuck rule is based on the premise the QB decided to hold onto the ball, but he losses controll of the ball while still in live play. That is in dact a fumble.
I'm not saying we need to change history and give that game to the Raiders, I'm just saying the tuck rule is dumb as fuck.
It was a tuck / incomplete pass, the issue isn't the call the call was correct, the issue is the damn rule. The NFL has a tendency to write rules vaguely in an effort to put all the reprehensibility on the refs. Higher a team of technical writers and make the rules clear and preciseI honestly still couldn't tell you if that was a tuck or a fumble... Glad it went the Patriots way for sure but I can see why everyone else said fumble
well if you listened to the ref in question.It was a tuck / incomplete pass, the issue isn't the call the call was correct, the issue is the damn rule. The NFL has a tendency to write rules vaguely in an effort to put all the reprehensibility on the refs. Higher a team of technical writers and make the rules clear and precise