Jump to content

deepsixemtoboyd

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    248

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    deepsixemtoboyd
    deepsixemtoboyd reacted to M.O.A.B. in Lions @ Bombers Post Game Discussion   
    the illegal contact on the receiver called on heath vs. arcenaux was really a good acting job by arcenaux.
  2. Like
    pigseye
    deepsixemtoboyd got a reaction from pigseye in Lions @ Bombers Post Game Discussion   
    I was sitting at the 5 yard line directly parallel to the play.
    1. His momentum was halted before the ball came out.
    2. The whistle blew, clearly ending the play before the ball was out.
    3. Harris' rear end hit the ground at the same time as the ball came out, and the ground can't cause a fumble.
    4. There was nothing you could categorize as definitive on the replay, and definitive evidence is required to overturn a ruling on the field.
    Finally, the TSN panel - i.e. Matt, Chris, and - yes, 'fraid to say - even our own Milt - are full of it. They were watching from the studio, not at the game so they could not have heard the whistle. I also think it's pretty bush of them to call out the refs with the specious argument that this was a clear cut call that "burned BC". On what basis do they make this argument?! What a load of hooey! At worst, it was a 50/50 call that went against BC (hey, some do) and the 4 points noted above push it conclusively in the Bombers' favour. There, that was definitive.
  3. Like
    The Classic
    deepsixemtoboyd got a reaction from The Classic in Lions @ Bombers Post Game Discussion   
    I was sitting at the 5 yard line directly parallel to the play.
    1. His momentum was halted before the ball came out.
    2. The whistle blew, clearly ending the play before the ball was out.
    3. Harris' rear end hit the ground at the same time as the ball came out, and the ground can't cause a fumble.
    4. There was nothing you could categorize as definitive on the replay, and definitive evidence is required to overturn a ruling on the field.
    Finally, the TSN panel - i.e. Matt, Chris, and - yes, 'fraid to say - even our own Milt - are full of it. They were watching from the studio, not at the game so they could not have heard the whistle. I also think it's pretty bush of them to call out the refs with the specious argument that this was a clear cut call that "burned BC". On what basis do they make this argument?! What a load of hooey! At worst, it was a 50/50 call that went against BC (hey, some do) and the 4 points noted above push it conclusively in the Bombers' favour. There, that was definitive.
  4. Like
    rebusrankin
    deepsixemtoboyd got a reaction from rebusrankin in Lions @ Bombers Post Game Discussion   
    I was sitting at the 5 yard line directly parallel to the play.
    1. His momentum was halted before the ball came out.
    2. The whistle blew, clearly ending the play before the ball was out.
    3. Harris' rear end hit the ground at the same time as the ball came out, and the ground can't cause a fumble.
    4. There was nothing you could categorize as definitive on the replay, and definitive evidence is required to overturn a ruling on the field.
    Finally, the TSN panel - i.e. Matt, Chris, and - yes, 'fraid to say - even our own Milt - are full of it. They were watching from the studio, not at the game so they could not have heard the whistle. I also think it's pretty bush of them to call out the refs with the specious argument that this was a clear cut call that "burned BC". On what basis do they make this argument?! What a load of hooey! At worst, it was a 50/50 call that went against BC (hey, some do) and the 4 points noted above push it conclusively in the Bombers' favour. There, that was definitive.
×
×
  • Create New...