Chargers are better than the Broncos

[6025]

I contend it was not irrefutable evidence, which means the call cannot be overturned, despite what this VP is now claiming three days after the fact. Nobody had a clue what it should have been, meaning the call should have stood.

[richpjr]

I contend it was not irrefutable evidence, which means the call cannot be overturned, despite what this VP is now claiming three days after the fact. Nobody had a clue what it should have been, meaning the call should have stood.

Not sure how can you come to the conclusion that nobody had a clue on what it should have been when the call on the field matches the explanation given after the fact.

[QSmokey]

Cry of losers, Mister Smiley??
Take your Midol.


VIDEO LOADING
WE'RE SORRY, BUT THIS VIDEO IS NOT AVAILABLE.
WATCH MORE VIDEOS

Go Raiders. Lighten up, Horse Face. All the whining about the refs just makes us look like a bigger bunch of buffoons then we really are. Honestly...the refs? Maybe we're just SORE losers (in addition to losers).

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

At least were not Raider fan bafoons, oops I mean most of us...

[sandiego17]

Caldwell still has it, though almost simultaneously to the forearm touching the ground, the ball moves in his arm. The key thing is, the ball moves but is not knocked away. “Slight movement does not constitute a loss of possession,” NFL VP of officiating Dean Blandino said on his officiating training tape for the media and for teams over the weekend. “The forearm was down, and the player still had control of the loose ball.”

Just because a play is close does not mean it cannot be overturned. I have been an advocate that a replay has to show irrefutable evidence for a call on the field to be overturned. Yes, this play is close. Yes, there is clear evidence that Caldwell possessed it when his forearm hit the ground, meaning it should have been overturned.

I think this is hogwash, ball was loose. All this 'almost simultaneous' crap only goes to show that the call on the field should have stood, that explanation alone makes it far from irrefutable. What exactly is 'slight movement'? It was knocked out by an opposing player as evidence by the fumble. Does anybody think the Broncos would have had a legitimate beef if the correct call on the field were upheld? The argument would have been that the call wasn't irrefutable and that's a more valid argument than the one presented.

[sandiego17]

Go Raiders. Lighten up, Horse Face. All the whining about the refs just makes us look like a bigger bunch of buffoons then we really are. Honestly...the refs? Maybe we're just SORE losers (in addition to losers).

At least we're not asking that the rules are changed everytime we lose like the guy with giant head that doesn't fit in his helmet. Just asking that the rules are applied fairly.

[6025]

Not sure how can you come to the conclusion that nobody had a clue on what it should have been when the call on the field matches the explanation given after the fact.

That's right, after the fact, to cover for the refs on the field.

And where in the rule book do they explain when a player loses control? Seems subjective to me. What they call "slight movement" is what I call the beginning of the fumble. The right call was the replay did not show irrefutable evidence so it should have stood as called.

[Wheels]

I think this is hogwash, ball was loose. All this 'almost simultaneous' crap only goes to show that the call on the field should have stood, that explanation alone makes it far from irrefutable. What exactly is 'slight movement'? It was knocked out by an opposing player as evidence by the fumble. Does anybody think the Broncos would have had a legitimate beef if the correct call on the field were upheld? The argument would have been that the call wasn't irrefutable and that's a more valid argument than the one presented.

I agree. If he had never lost possession, then I can see that reasoning being applied, but if it was moving and then came loose, then how do you reconcile at what point the movement became a fumble?

[6025]

I agree. If he had never lost possession, then I can see that reasoning being applied, but if it was moving and then came loose, then how do you reconcile at what point the movement became a fumble?

Exactly. As soon as the ball started moving the runner never re-established control, therefore it was the beginning of the fumble.

[Mister Hoarse]

Did any Official review the inside of his pants to determine where the movement actually started?


VIDEO LOADING
WE'RE SORRY, BUT THIS VIDEO IS NOT AVAILABLE.
WATCH MORE VIDEOS

[QSmokey]

At least we're not asking that the rules are changed every time we lose like the guy with giant head that doesn't fit in his helmet. Just asking that the rules are applied fairly.

The League has deified that doofus; the rest of us are just stuck having to suffer until he finally retires. But all the whining just sounds like so much sour grapes.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

Sour grapes are the beginnings of a fine wine...