1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Super Bowl XLIII Running Thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Good Doctor, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    That's how I saw it Devil. They didn't review it because they didn't want the Super Bowl to end with a ref under a hood. Pure PR, which backfired.
  2. Tommy_Dreamer

    Tommy_Dreamer Well-Known Member

    If anyone says that it shouldn't be reviewed, no matter if it was a fumble or not, then I question their freaking sanity.
  3. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    It was a suggestion.

    The spike can be replaced with a one-step drop pass out of bounds.
  4. Tommy_Dreamer

    Tommy_Dreamer Well-Known Member

    As someone said before, welcome to the 1999 Stanley Cup finals
  5. Boobie Miles

    Boobie Miles Active Member

    Ahh, I see. Thought you were implying that you were quoting the committee.
  6. RedCanuck

    RedCanuck Active Member

    There's no doubt in my mind that his arm was coming forward before the ball got jammed and loose. It's unacceptable not to review that, whether I'm right or not — and I thought there were some other iffy non-calls for holding along the lines.
  7. I don't know if you all have talked about this, but how great was that slo-mo shot of Fitzgerald saying "NO!" six or eight times after the Holmes catch? A classic moment.
  8. Compare the two fumble/incompletion calls on whether or not Warner's arm was moving forward. The one earlier in the game and the one at the end we're all arguing about. Looked to me like the refs blew both.
  9. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    But that's intentional grounding.

    Of course, so is a spike.
  10. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Why did they not review it -- have we heard any explanations?
  11. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    I guess they could not land a helicopter on the field. [/threebricksshy]
  12. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    I watched Canadiens-Bruins online and then went out to the family SB get-together. No reason whatsoever for 29,458 hours of pregame shows.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page