Other Games Thread

[CptJesus]

I don't share your disdain of RG3.

I thinks he's a phenom and well worthy of the praise he's receiving.

Where did you get disdain? I'm just tired of everyone acting like he's the second coming of jesus

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Justlovemybirds]

Lol Boing!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[HoustonRaven]

Where did you get disdain? I'm just tired of everyone acting like he's the second coming of jesus

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

That's how it came across.

Cool.

[HoustonRaven]

Not the best time to miss your first FG.

[Corey]

Romo has to be the biggest choke artist in NFL history.

[HoustonRaven]

Skins take their second TO?

Not good.

[RavenMadness]

Romo has to be the biggest choke artist in NFL history.

Sweet Mother of God he is good...... good & terrible!

[Paintballguy]

lol @ d hall

[RavenMadness]

Dez is amazing... pro bowl snub!

[HoustonRaven]

Romo is hot garbage.

My God.

[RavenMadness]

Is he colorblind????

[Paintballguy]

lol tony homo strikes again and josh wilson sighting

[bmorecareful]

That isn't really what the rules say though. A review is prohibited only when a team commits a foul that prevents the next snap.

So in order for a review to be prohibited there must be a penalty that prevents a snap. Assuming the booth buzzed the ref (initiated the review) before any penalty (the throwing of the challenge flag in this case), then there is no way the snap was being 'prevented' by any penalty. So the review is not prohibited, though the penalty (that didn't prevent any snap in this case) is still assessed.

It appears that I stand corrected. After carefully reviewing the rules you cited, it looks like the relevant issue here is that 1) Throwing a challenge flag on an unchallengeable (as in, automatically reviewed) play is a pre-snap penalty; 2) the replay official may not signal for review of a call against a team that incurs a pre-snap penalty; 3) the Packers incurred the pre-snap penalty after review had already been signaled.

If that's what the rules say, then I was wrong. The whole rule is just incomprehensibly bizarre. It's funny that the whole rule is BS, but that McCarthy escapes being victimized by it because of a pure technicality. Again, he got incredibly lucky and it was a difference of a few seconds of time that saved him.

But wait... something I just realized. If they called the penalty on McCarthy at all, which they did, wouldn't that have actually been a pre-snap penalty for which no review should have been granted?? And shouldn't the review have been disregarded anyway? I guess I'm still not understanding it properly. It just seems like Carey split the difference in an inconsistent way--"well, I'll let the review stand but still assess a penalty." Doesn't make sense

[StingerNLG]

Nice throw right to the cornerback Romo.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

[Justlovemybirds]

Lol romo is just WOW!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Corey]

Sweet Mother of God he is good...... good & terrible!

Choke artist extraordinaire

[HoustonRaven]

Probably not a good thing Romo has four coaches in his ear right now.

[bmorecareful]

Romo is extremely lucky his picks didn't turn into immediate points.

Now, watch... if the Cowboys somehow manage to eke out a win despite those picks, some in the media and even on this board will fully exonerate Romo. In fact, they'll credit him, saying he "fought through adversity" and "made plays when it counted."

They're conveniently forgetting of course that his picks are what created the adversity in the first place and were the only reason he NEEDED to throw for 300 yards and 3 touchdowns to win the game anyway.

[Corey]

Why wasn't that a fumble?

[StingerNLG]

Is it me, or is the read zone offense only good for a few plays and then easy to contain?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2