That statement doesn't say the call was right. It says that the officials should have called offensive interference, which would have resulted in the Packers winning. And it says that the video review did not provide the "indisputable visual evidence" required to reverse the call on the field. It doesn't say the call on the field was right.
That touchdown last night
That statement doesn't say the call was right. It says that the officials should have called offensive interference, which would have resulted in the Packers winning. And it says that the video review did not provide the "indisputable visual evidence" required to reverse the call on the field. It doesn't say the call on the field was right.
09-25-2012, 11:27 AM
We all thought the Pac12 officials were bad. Let's be thankful that they are not the replacement refs the NFL is using.
We all thought the Pac12 officials were bad. Let's be thankful that they are not the replacement refs the NFL is using.
09-25-2012, 12:21 PM
"compare," "1992," should we chalk those erros up to advancing age or to poor typing?
09-25-2012, 01:24 PM
(09-25-2012, 12:21 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:"compare," "1992," should we chalk those erros up to advancing age or to poor typing?:)
(09-25-2012, 12:21 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:"compare," "1992," should we chalk those erros up to advancing age or to poor typing?:)
09-25-2012, 05:14 PM
(09-25-2012, 01:24 PM)Griffin78 link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6527.msg48376#msg48376 date=1348600881]:)
"compare," "1992," should we chalk those erros up to advancing age or to poor typing?
[/quote]
poor typing. That's my story, and I'm sticking to i.
;)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »