What I don't get is why there are some plays that are not reviewable. It's ridiculous. If they are going to have video replay have it in every aspect of the game. Why does certain situations (judgments, etc) not reviewable? If instant replay can prove something why not use it?
Yes, the smart football move would have been for him to knock the ball away and we wouldn't be talking about this. However, he didn't but he made the play. The referees ruled wrong. Instant Replay showed he intercepted the ball, so change the ruling on the field. It's ridiculous that stipulations, etc. say, oh that's not reviewable. Any reasonable person would look at it and say............."Dude, that's definitely an interception".
Don't Forget to bring a Towel
What is not a rumor is the Vegas take on that play swung to the house's favor by almost $250 million dollars. Enough to make one wonder....
If the Packers didn't want to get ****ed by the refs, then maybe that magnificent, cerebral, All-Universe QB of theirs should have helped them score more than 12 points.
Oh yeah, they're mentally soft too. They're the Ravens of the NFC: strutting popinjays when they win, and helpless victims when they lose. **** 'em.
Pittsburgh, PA: City of Champions.
By NFL rule, the play was called correctly. It doesn't say if one guy has more possesion than the other, it doesn't say if one guy only had one hand on it in the air, it says if 2 players both have possesion it's the offense's ball. Both players had their hands on the ball and when that occurs it's the offenses ball by rule. Now don't get me wrong, the rules in the NFL are screwed up, and there are way too many of them and many don't use common sense, but they got this one right according to the rule.
if the Packers DB had been the WR, it would have been called a TD...