PDA

View Full Version : It was a touchdown. No really.


cowboykilla
12-14-2008, 08:58 PM
First up,big shout out to ''BIG BEN'',all you haters can say what you want,the bottom line is Ben comes through in the clutch.:thumbsup: That's two weeks in a row, ''clutch''! The winning touchdown was legal because, unlike a rusher approaching the goal line,the receiver's feet came down in the e-zone with possesion of the ball,just as if the ball was thrown to the sideline or the back of the e-zone,that's a touchdown. The catch itself, breaks the plain. :dancing: The titans ain't ready. Gooooo STEELERS!!!!! :tt02: :tt02: :tt02: :helmet:

stlrtruck
12-14-2008, 09:47 PM
People are going to argue semantics on this all week long but you're right, as long as one part of the ball crosses the front of the goal line it's a touchdown and while it was close, I don't think there is any arguing the reversal - altough I'm sure a lot of ratbird fans want to do that!

But as you said, bottom line WE WON!!

Bring on the Titans!

devilsdancefloor
12-14-2008, 10:00 PM
Only way i can explain it is this.. when a receiver catches a ball for a first down and fall back to where his knees are a half yard short is it a first down? And another thing about the replay booth what angles are they looking at? Are they same as what is being played on TV?? This si th epart of replay i dont know. Maybe he had a different angle that showed the ball clearly across the line?Any way it is a moot point and we are North Champions :tt::tt::tt03::tt03::tt02::tt03::tt03::tt03:

stillers4me
12-14-2008, 10:01 PM
They just showed it again. Even Peckerhead Collingsworth said it was a touchdown. The overhead shot clearly showed the ball breaking the plane.

HometownGal
12-14-2008, 10:04 PM
Steelers 13

Ratfinks 9

End of story.

P.S. That was definitely a TD and I'd feel the same way if the tables were turned.

jaygorius
12-14-2008, 10:05 PM
They just showed it again. Even Peckerhead Collingsworth said it was a touchdown. The overhead shot clearly showed the ball breaking the plane.

Did Collinsworth change his opinion? On the NBC program before the sunday night game he said it was not a TD.

fansince'76
12-14-2008, 10:06 PM
They just showed it again. Even Peckerhead Collingsworth said it was a touchdown.

Yeah, right before the pencil-necked geek insinuated the game was a gift from the refs on the overturned call. I hate that douche.

Tim
12-14-2008, 10:06 PM
You know, even if it didn't, how often are balls caught fully out of bounds in the back of the endzone? Two feet in, ball in outstretched hands out of bounds? Happens fairly frequently I think and all of those are touchdowns.

stillers4me
12-14-2008, 10:07 PM
Did Collinsworth change his opinion? On the NBC program before the sunday night game he said it was not a TD.

Just watched it. They had the regular side view as well as an overhead shot. No question. TD!!! Not even Collinsworth could argue with it. The other guys said they would overturn the call, but they probably lost money on the game. :chuckle:

ShutDown24
12-14-2008, 10:16 PM
The call probably shouldn't have been overturned. I don't think it was conclusive evidence.

HOWEVER, it was a touchdown. So in the end, they got it right - which is all that matters.

X-Terminator
12-14-2008, 10:16 PM
Well, upon further review, I have to say that it was a TD from the overhead shot NBC showed on the halftime show. That is obviously what the ref saw and why he overturned the call. It can be argued that the overhead shot is skewed a bit due to the angle as it is not perpendicular to the goal line, but even so, it still looked as if it broke the plane. I still would not have overturned the call, though, because it is not indisputable evidence IMO.

DJ919
12-14-2008, 10:19 PM
Guys I was at the game. As a matter of fact we just got in about 10 minutes ago from Baltimore...We had GREAT seats with an angle that put me and my crew almost right at the angle point of the catch...Not saying this because I'm a Steelers Fanatic, but It was a touchdown. Trust me if it wasn't a touchdown I would say we got away with one...But it was without question a TD...We even called it, and started going NUTS at the point of the catch and was wondering WHY refs were not thowing their hands in the air signaling a TD. Even the Ravens fans that were in our seating area knew it was a TD from the initial. Great Win for our Steelers, but geezzz we have GOT to stop winning like this...I don't know if my heart can take it any more...lol...We did it!! We did it!! We did it!!.. :tt02::tt02::tt02: ... Now lets eye the bigger goals.

Dino 6 Rings
12-14-2008, 10:20 PM
Anyone have a snap shot of the over head shot of the TD?

Would be cool to see.

NYC SteelersFan
12-14-2008, 10:43 PM
It was a TD. Had it been any other team I believe the initial call wouldv'e been TD, no review necessary. Despite the media's strong desire to have a playoffs that don't include the boring, unglamerous and small-market Steelers, they can't force the issue with a controversial call. The last thing the league wanted is for another Steelers/Colts 05' playoff type of call. Where at the end of the game, the replay shows a clear TD but the call isn't made.

I absolutely love how irate the media is that the Steelers won the division and even has a shot at the # 1 seed. I can see the disgust in all their faces, all of them thinking, "toughest fu#$ing schedule and these bastards still get their unexciting, low-ratings, hard to cover by fake journalists and analysts ass' into the playoffs".

Give It To Abercrombie
12-14-2008, 10:56 PM
I too was at the game and couldnt see shit. Couldnt hear any either with all the Ravens fans crying. :tt03:

I have been reading there was a rule change this offseason?? The ball DOES NOT NEED TO BREAK THE PLANE. He just needs to have possession with two feet in the endzone, even if it is the front of the endzone.

"From the NFL rulebook:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I didn't get this from the NFL myself but maybe someone with more time can find it.

Moosebreath
12-14-2008, 11:38 PM
The "rule" circulating around about "being awarded" a touchdown is completely bogus.

Here's an online copy of the 2007 rulebook. Keep in mind that no changes were made regarding touchdowns in the 2008 rules.

http://www.patscap.com/rulebook.pdf

Rule 11, Section 2, Article 1:

It is a touchdown:

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball on or behind the opponent's goal line.

This rule would strongly imply that there is no need, in that type of situation, for the ball to break the plane of the goal line.

lilyoder6
12-14-2008, 11:41 PM
damn... good rule finding there moosebreath

CargoJon
12-14-2008, 11:46 PM
I too was at the game and couldnt see shit. Couldnt hear any either with all the Ravens fans crying. :tt03:

I have been reading there was a rule change this offseason?? The ball DOES NOT NEED TO BREAK THE PLANE. He just needs to have possession with two feet in the endzone, even if it is the front of the endzone.

"From the NFL rulebook:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I didn't get this from the NFL myself but maybe someone with more time can find it.

Bingo :tt02:

Steelers & I
12-14-2008, 11:53 PM
Touchdown all the way baby. TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN!

There's NO WAY that the refs would have changed the call on the field if they didn't clearly see, on replay, that it was a touchdown. Heck anymore, I rarely know what constitutes a catch and what doesn't. I've seen many receptions go to replay and my guess on the outcome is usually wrong.

The head of NFL referees will clear it up next week on the NFL Network. I'm sure that he'll give a detailed description of what constitutes a legal reception in the endzone.

BozMan
12-15-2008, 12:24 AM
The only mystery to me is why the idiot refs blew the initial call. TD!

SoCalSteelersFan
12-15-2008, 12:25 AM
before the refs even had to review the play I knew it was a touchdown. Before the big 92 yd drive, I called a touchdown waiting to happen. My only guess that was wrong was the td would be to Hines Ward. Oh well, the end result is still the same! Great win for us!!!!

thebus36idf
12-15-2008, 12:32 AM
[QUOTE=jaygorius;497582]Did Collinsworth change his opinion? On the NBC program before the sunday night game he said it was not a TD.[

I agree He definitley said they botched it by overturning it. He said replay has become a way of deciding the call instead of overturning it, which requires conclusive evidence, which he said there was none of. However what he didn't manage to explain is that the official in the booth at this juncture of the game calls the play into question. Which means this isn't just a coach with wishful thinking, but an official who believes the call was incorrect.

Angina
12-15-2008, 02:20 AM
Yeah, right before the pencil-necked geek insinuated the game was a gift from the refs on the overturned call. I hate that douche.

Collinsworth is NOT a douche! He's the stuff the douche washes out!!!!!!

(I'm sorry, but it needed to be said.)


Angina

plenewken
12-15-2008, 06:58 AM
(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball on or behind the opponent's goal line.

This rule would strongly imply that there is no need, in that type of situation, for the ball to break the plane of the goal line.

ON or BEHIND the goal line does means break the plane. Yesterday, the ball wasn't certainly not behind the goal line and it's not obvious that it was ON the goal line either.
Personally I wouldn't have overtuned the call cause there's no undisputable evidence but I'm glad the ref upstairs saw it differently.

BubbyBrister
12-15-2008, 01:39 PM
Saw this over at the raven fan forums (i tend to lurk on the other team's boards during the week of the game/afterwards).

----------------------------

This was read by Shannon Sharpe on NFL Network (radio) this morning from the official NFL rule book (not the abbreviated version we see on NFL.com):
"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I believe it to be NFL Rule "32-a..." but it's proven very difficult to locate as NFL.com only seems to have summary versions of the rule book. Does anyone know anyone who actually has the entire thing? I think my Dad might, but it'll be a few years old.

This was the basis of "undisputable visual evidence" that overturned the call. No one can argue possession or two feet in the end zone.

------------------------------

and we all know that mr. sharpe is a HUGE fan of the steelers /endsaracasm

so, there ya go...do with it what you will.

skepticsightsten
12-15-2008, 01:50 PM
The other thing to point out is that the Ravens then got the ball back and had a chance to do something with it. What did they do with it? Throw it to our defense. If one bad call decides the game against you, you did not deserve to win it. Also, you could argue that they only had 40-some seconds to make a play. We've been in similar situations this season and we've certainly come up with big plays. No excuses, we outplayed them despite the touchdown, Steelers win.

Moosebreath
12-15-2008, 02:07 PM
ON or BEHIND the goal line does means break the plane.

If it refers to the ball, sure - but the strong implication is that it refers to the player.

BubbyBrister
12-15-2008, 02:55 PM
deleted: just deleting my post as it was redundant.

memphissteelergirl
12-15-2008, 03:02 PM
Collinsworth is NOT a douche! He's the stuff the douche washes out!!!!!!

(I'm sorry, but it needed to be said.)


Angina

Dang...don't be shy...say how ya really feel! :chuckle:

SteelerFanInCA
12-15-2008, 04:13 PM
Collinsworth is NOT a douche! He's the stuff the douche washes out!!!!!!

(I'm sorry, but it needed to be said.)


Angina

Agreed, that guy is the biggest dumbass. He still hates us probably because of all the pain we inflected on him over the years; both physical and mental.

HughC
12-15-2008, 06:31 PM
It was a TD. Had it been any other team I believe the initial call wouldv'e been TD, no review necessary. Despite the media's strong desire to have a playoffs that don't include the boring, unglamerous and small-market Steelers, they can't force the issue with a controversial call. The last thing the league wanted is for another Steelers/Colts 05' playoff type of call. Where at the end of the game, the replay shows a clear TD but the call isn't made.

I absolutely love how irate the media is that the Steelers won the division and even has a shot at the # 1 seed. I can see the disgust in all their faces, all of them thinking, "toughest fu#$ing schedule and these bastards still get their unexciting, low-ratings, hard to cover by fake journalists and analysts ass' into the playoffs".
Ha ha, nice rant ...... though the world isn't out to get us, really. First of all, given the choice, I guarantee the media (and networks) would much prefer the Steelers over the Ravens, who are far more boring, unglamerous, and are also small-market. The media (and networks) draw readers and viewers to a game by marketing players, and there are far more well-known names on the Steelers than on the Ravens.

The coverage of this play is because the media - specifically BSPN - thrive on controversy. Controversy draws interest and debate, which draws more readers and viewers, which equates to higher ratings, which leads to higher profits. They'd be showing us the replay over and over and talking about the play regardless of which way the call went. It's as simple as that; there's no conspiracy and nobody hates us or is is out to get us.

cowboykilla
12-15-2008, 07:47 PM
Whether or not it was a touchdown is moot on 2 counts.
#1 The review on the field (which we didn't ask for) said "touchdown" and that's all that really mattered.
#2 There was no footage any of us saw that overturned the ruling on the field, which was 4th and inches.
It's either a botched review or a touchdown, but no way would I call it a correct call.
It's a good thing it was the ref's call and not yours.:rulez:

missedgehead
12-15-2008, 07:53 PM
Just now on ESPN, Mortensen said that Mike Perreria , the head of officiating said the refs/officials made the RIGHT CALL, so it is a TOUCHDOWN.

On to the Titans. Let's go Steelers!!

The Duke
12-15-2008, 07:58 PM
Just now on ESPN, Mortensen said that Mike Perreria , the head of officiating said the refs/officials made the RIGHT CALL, so it is a TOUCHDOWN.

On to the Titans. Let's go Steelers!!

and Giants, and Pats!!

:coffee:

43Hitman
12-15-2008, 08:01 PM
and Giants, and Pats!!

:coffee:


:rofl::rofl: You beat me to it.:toofunny::toofunny:

HometownGal
12-15-2008, 08:05 PM
:rofl::rofl: You beat me to it.:toofunny::toofunny:

You two are gonna burn in hell. :evil:

No worry, though. I'll beat both of you there and I'll save you two seats in front of the big screen TV. We can watch Steelers games and toast marshmallows. :drink:

klick81
12-15-2008, 08:15 PM
LOL...this just got funnay!

stillers4me
12-15-2008, 08:16 PM
You two are gonna burn in hell. :evil:

No worry, though. I'll beat both of you there and I'll save you two seats in front of the big screen TV. We can watch Steelers games and toast marshmallows. :drink:

Save room for me! :flap:

X-Terminator
12-15-2008, 08:16 PM
You two are gonna burn in hell. :evil:

No worry, though. I'll beat both of you there and I'll save you two seats in front of the big screen TV. We can watch Steelers games and toast marshmallows. :drink:

As long as you don't give them MY seat! :chuckle:

Angina
12-15-2008, 08:28 PM
Dang...don't be shy...say how ya really feel! :chuckle:

I'm sorry. :crying02:

Was that too over the top? I sometimes forget which board I'm on. (That and the fact that I'm missing the part of the brain that, you know, inhibits things.)

Can I at least say that Collinsworth is a buck-toothed, marble brain?

Pleeeeeeeze????? :grin:

Angina
(cause I'm such a pain!!!)

HometownGal
12-15-2008, 08:38 PM
Save room for me! :flap:

Don't you worry - yours and XT's seats will be nice and warm when you join us! :drink: We have to save room for Gary, LLT and hipcheese too. :thumbsup:

You bringin' the weenies Sue? :chuckle:

XT - you can bring the Molson! (No IC piss water, please - LOL!) :beerbang:

X-Terminator
12-15-2008, 08:45 PM
Don't you worry - yours and XT's seats will be nice and warm when you join us! :drink: We have to save room for Gary, LLT and hipcheese too. :thumbsup:

You bringin' the weenies Sue? :chuckle:

XT - you can bring the Molson! (No IC piss water, please - LOL!) :beerbang:

I only drink the best! None of that muck from the bottom of the Allegheny River they call "beer" for me! :drink:

43Hitman
12-15-2008, 08:46 PM
I've got the periogi's. (sp?)

lardlad
12-15-2008, 09:05 PM
The other thing to point out is that the Ravens then got the ball back and had a chance to do something with it. What did they do with it? Throw it to our defense. If one bad call decides the game against you, you did not deserve to win it. Also, you could argue that they only had 40-some seconds to make a play. We've been in similar situations this season and we've certainly come up with big plays. No excuses, we outplayed them despite the touchdown, Steelers win.

Exactly, of the 92 yds Ben smoked them on it makes little sense to complian about the last 3/8". Savran had pretty good video of the sideline view and you could see a good piece of the ball break the line. Even RayRay admitted they lost the game.

HometownGal
12-15-2008, 09:12 PM
I've got the periogi's. (sp?)

:thumbsup::drink::applaudit: Don't forget the haluski!

Can I at least say that Collinsworth is a buck-toothed, marble brain?


Only if you add that he has a head shaped like a pecker and eats apples through picket fences with those bucky beaver teeth of his. :chuckle:

"How much chuck could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" :beaver:

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cris-collinsworth1.jpg

steelwall
12-15-2008, 09:41 PM
I have to admit, when the game was happening I thought it was not a touchdown. Now looking at the replay on NFL.com I can tell it was clearly a touchdown.

When Holmes first catches the ball (right when the ball is first in his hands)he has possesion with the ball on top of the goal line. It happenes realy fast but there is no doubt in my mind it was a legit TD.

Everything that happens after that point is irrelevant. Good call for once ref's.

Edit:

However the ref could have explained it much better at the time, and his half explination lead to much of the dispute IMO.

chrisjohnson
12-15-2008, 10:49 PM
The titans ain't ready.

I promise you, after what happened yesterday, we WILL be ready.
Good luck should be a good game.


chrisjohnson

jjpro11
12-15-2008, 10:54 PM
none of this will really matter in the end if we go out and win the next 2 games or if baltimore loses one of the next two.. we had the tiebreaker even with a loss to the rats.. i dont want to be hearing about this bullshit when we win the super bowl. :wink02:

BubbyBrister
12-15-2008, 11:20 PM
I have to admit, when the game was happening I thought it was not a touchdown. Now looking at the replay on NFL.com I can tell it was clearly a touchdown.

When Holmes first catches the ball (right when the ball is first in his hands)he has possesion with the ball on top of the goal line. It happenes realy fast but there is no doubt in my mind it was a legit TD.

Everything that happens after that point is irrelevant. Good call for once ref's.

Edit:

However the ref could have explained it much better at the time, and his half explination lead to much of the dispute IMO.

sorry steelwall, i'm not singling you out, just the nearest explanation that i found.

none of this matters, it is a moot point. earlier in this thread i posted the nfl rule on the situation and as long as santonio was established in the end zone prior to catching the ball, the ball does not need to cross the plain.

it might have, it might not have...but it doesn't matter, touchdown anyway.


i found the rule on the ratbird forums and it was also quoted on sirius radio this morning in that way.

steelwall
12-15-2008, 11:30 PM
sorry steelwall, i'm not singling you out, just the nearest explanation that i found.

none of this matters, it is a moot point. earlier in this thread i posted the nfl rule on the situation and as long as santonio was established in the end zone prior to catching the ball, the ball does not need to cross the plain.

it might have, it might not have...but it doesn't matter, touchdown anyway.


i found the rule on the ratbird forums and it was also quoted on sirius radio this morning in that way.

No problem.

I allways thought the ball had to at least touch the goaline (or break the plain if you will) No matter which rule is correct it would be a TD by both of them.

43Hitman
12-15-2008, 11:32 PM
sorry steelwall, i'm not singling you out, just the nearest explanation that i found.

none of this matters, it is a moot point. earlier in this thread i posted the nfl rule on the situation and as long as santonio was established in the end zone prior to catching the ball, the ball does not need to cross the plain.

it might have, it might not have...but it doesn't matter, touchdown anyway.


i found the rule on the ratbird forums and it was also quoted on sirius radio this morning in that way.

That is not true. If that was the case then it never would have been reviewed in the first place. The ball does not have to completely cross the plain, but it DOES have to break the plain.

steelwall
12-15-2008, 11:34 PM
That is not true. If that was the case then it never would have been reviewed in the first place.

Good point.

Moosebreath
12-15-2008, 11:39 PM
earlier in this thread i posted the nfl rule on the situation

i found the rule on the ratbird forums and it was also quoted on sirius radio this morning in that way.

While the concept of the correct rule is approximately the same as what you posted, the one from the Ravens forums is fake. I posted a link to the official 2007 rulebook even earlier in this thread. It details, in completely different wording, the scenario where the touchdown counts regardless of the plane of the goal line.

43Hitman
12-15-2008, 11:47 PM
The "rule" circulating around about "being awarded" a touchdown is completely bogus.

Here's an online copy of the 2007 rulebook. Keep in mind that no changes were made regarding touchdowns in the 2008 rules.

http://www.patscap.com/rulebook.pdf

Rule 11, Section 2, Article 1:

It is a touchdown:

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball on or behind the opponent's goal line.

This rule would strongly imply that there is no need, in that type of situation, for the ball to break the plane of the goal line.

It says on or behind the goal line..not in front of it. The goal line is defined as all the paint. That is what they are referring to here.

NYC SteelersFan
12-15-2008, 11:50 PM
Ha ha, nice rant ...... though the world isn't out to get us, really. First of all, given the choice, I guarantee the media (and networks) would much prefer the Steelers over the Ravens, who are far more boring, unglamerous, and are also small-market. The media (and networks) draw readers and viewers to a game by marketing players, and there are far more well-known names on the Steelers than on the Ravens.

The coverage of this play is because the media - specifically BSPN - thrive on controversy. Controversy draws interest and debate, which draws more readers and viewers, which equates to higher ratings, which leads to higher profits. They'd be showing us the replay over and over and talking about the play regardless of which way the call went. It's as simple as that; there's no conspiracy and nobody hates us or is is out to get us.

Ray Lewis, a rookie "star" QB (according to top QB analysts Dilfer and Kordell) and a young rookie head coach would be a lot more marketable than the Steelers. Ray lewis could give interviews until his face turned blue.

BubbyBrister
12-16-2008, 08:11 AM
That is not true. If that was the case then it never would have been reviewed in the first place. The ball does not have to completely cross the plain, but it DOES have to break the plain.

I, prior to reading the rule, believed the same thing you did. However, there is an actual excerpt from the ruling back on page 2 i think. It was read by Shannon Sharpe on Sirius Radio (pretty sure he would have a full nfl rulebook from his playing days). Later in the day, the same excerpt was read by Mark Madden about halfway through his show correcting himself.

And to say that it wouldn't have been reviewed, well...if the refs weren't 100% clear on the rule themselves (its a rare situation) which wouldn't be surprising considering the way a few plays have gone this year.

I'm actually curious myself and plan on trying to find it in a rule book today (not the nfl.com one, that is just a summary version). I'll post back if I can find it, if not...I'm with all of you, just thought it was interesting.

Also
It says on or behind the goal line..not in front of it. The goal line is defined as all the paint. That is what they are referring to here.

I'm pretty sure that he is saying that the rule doesn't clarify that it means the ball. It says "any player who is legally in bounds catches or receives a loose ball on or behind the goal line..."

obviously, santonio holmes was in fact on or behind the goal line. Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about the ball having to cross.

maybe, who knows? /shrug

it is also possible that i fell for a semi-elaborate hoax, as i cannot find an original quote of the rule. just other people posting it up...so as of now, i concede...buuuuut, the nfl made a statement saying the ball crossed anyway, so...TOUCHDOWN!

Fire Haley
12-16-2008, 08:58 AM
NFL agrees on officials' TD call


League backs referee's take on Holmes' score

Tuesday, December 16, 2008
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore Sunday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' 4 with 43 seconds left. But after viewing it on replay, Coleman overturned the call and signaled a touchdown.

"Walt Coleman determined via high-def video review that the receiver had possession and two feet down with the ball in the goal line, meaning it broke the plane," an NFL spokesman said via e-mail.

The spokesman said Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, backed Coleman's ruling after replay.

Coleman explained after the game that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

By rule, his feet did not have to be down, however, when the ball crossed the goal line -- he had to be in possession of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and then to complete the play his feet had to touch the ground.

"When he gained control of the ball," Coleman said, "the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

memphissteelergirl
12-16-2008, 09:49 AM
Can I at least say that Collinsworth is a buck-toothed, marble brain?

Pleeeeeeeze????? :grin:

Angina
(cause I'm such a pain!!!)

LOL....no problem. I couldn't agree more. :wink02:

filthyfan
12-16-2008, 10:04 AM
NYC Steelers Fan hit the nail on the head yesterday....The sports media is driving this....all they have to do is show the FREEZE shot of Santonio catching the ball right down the goal line...it is clearly breaking the plane and in posession of Holmes at that split second...= TD....
Instead....they are fueling this because it draws viewers...increases ratings....and makes their X-mas bonus bigger....period...