The red flag
 

What was that all about? Since when can a coach ask to have a penalty that wasn't called be reviewed? If they had called 12 men on the field, and a coach throws the flag so that they can review if there really were 12 men on the field, that would be one thing. To throw the flag and ask that a penalty be called because the refs missed it, is another. If that's a reviewable play, then any penalty that wasn't called should be reviewable. You'll be seeing flags on almost every play because somewhere there is always a hold or hit or something that the refs don't call. The NFL needs to change this rule immediately, or risk the chance of alienating everyone from watching a game. I'm just glad that it didn't cost the Giants the game. I wish the Rams had thrown a few more flags during their SB against the Pats. I still think that game was rigged combined with the Pats using their unfair advantage. And now that someone has evidence of it, just ********es me off even more. :mad: :mad: :mad:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...ory?id=3227245

You're right Al
 

$br# I was thinking that myself, what are you trying to give them the game, that was really a bad review and should have never been looked at. The review is good for somethings, but overall I think it should be used only on game changing moments, not when I feel like it.

i seem to remember that type of occurance being reviewed before. i think that it is allowed to be reviewed because it is not a judgement call, like most other penalties, you either have twelve men on the field or you don't.

513 should know about having 12 men on the field at a time. He had 12 men on the field when he stopped me on my 2 point conversion in the playoffs !!!!!:D

I do not think possible penalties should be allowed to be challenged . Especially when it helps the Patriots.

i thought that you said that i had 13!lffng$ mgngcrz

Oooohhhhh
 

KEEP THIS GOING PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I NEARLY FLIPPED THE OUT WHEN I SAW THIS.
Unfortunately, i gotta run out for a dinner party, but when i get back tonight, please have 69 replies going so i can either stay angry or understand that nonsense last night. OOOOHHH AM I HEATED!!!

Got A Quick Second
 

Hey Al,

That Sb You Say Was Rigged.....that Was Also The Year Of "the Tuck Rule". A Rule I Had Never Heard Of, And Havent Seen Since. Ridiculous!

yes, same year. i agree 100% that it was a created call. i have seen it called one other time since, i can't remember who, but the situation was completely different, kind of left me scratching my head. i have also seen it not called a couple of times, to the point of the announcers saying, "isn't that suppose to be the tuck rule?" again, i can't remember who it was.

The "Tuck Rule" was changed the next year specifically because of that call in the Pats/Raiders game. The refs called the rule correctly as it was written but the rule was written poorly....so they changed it the following year.

The way it WAS written: If the QB uses a pump fake and the ball comes loose before the QB has a chance to completely tuck it away securely....it was considered an incomplete attempted pass.

The way it IS written today: If you use a pump fake and the ball comes loose during the forward motion of the arm...it is an incomplete pass. If the arm is NOT going forward...it is a fumble....whether it is ever tucked away securely or not makes no difference any longer.

Brady used a pump fake and had yet to completely tuck it back securely when it came free. By the rule as it WAS written....the refs were right to rule it incomplete. The league saw how the literal interpretation of "tuck" made the rule open to obvious fumbles being ruled as incomplete passes...so they changed it....the following year.

I thought he fumbled the ball because he was being hit at the same time that he was pulling the ball in. Tuck my butt. It was a fumble! :mad: That rule should have started with a different letter, because that is what they did to the Raiders. And I'm not even a Raiders fan. mtmstnks