Jump to content

So Santonio Holmes actually didn't get both feet down


Squirrlnutz

Recommended Posts

[url="http://deadspin.com/5146343/one-foot-down"]http://deadspin.com/5146343/one-foot-down[/url]

Heard about this on the radio this morning. Dunno who took this shot, but apparently the Cardinals photographer has some pretty convincing shots of this too.

Obviously its a still photo so you can't say what happend a millisecond before or after, but it clearely shows one foot resting on the other and not touching the ground while his body is falling.


Lets see If I can successfully post it here:
[attachment=538:cheaters.jpg]

Fuckers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont really have a problem with the call. how many days of zooming in on photos did it take the cardinals photographer to find this and at which part of the catch was it?

Arizona should have done their job and not let santio do whatever he wanted that drive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ben' post='744610' date='Feb 5 2009, 07:46 AM']I dont really have a problem with the call. how many days of zooming in on photos did it take the cardinals photographer to find this and at which part of the catch was it?

Arizona should have done their job and not let santio do whatever he wanted that drive.[/quote]


I had a problem with the call then and now.

I don't know exactly when the photo was taken, but I questioned
whether both feet were down, even after seeing the replay.

I understand that the call on the field was a TD( surprise surprise),
and there had to be clear proof to over turn it. But let's not act like
if he was out of bounds, and the call was missed, that the Cards didn't
do their job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='744613' date='Feb 5 2009, 08:56 AM']Another typical day in Pissburgh . . .

Crowds threw bottles at police, set small fires, broke store windows and overturned cars.


[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3883264"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3883264[/url][/quote]

Hell they do that in Nati when theyre not even celebrating......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[img]http://www.azcentral.com/i/sized/1/8/0/e905/j1000/PHP4988EE6A3E081.jpg[/img]

Obviously his feet were down. I'll concede that fact.


But, their should have been a penalty called after that catch . . .


[quote]Holmes made the game-winning catch in Super Bowl XLIII, too, only this time officials missed what should have been a penalty for excessive celebration, and I'm not talking about what happened immediately following his reception. He fell to the ground, and he stayed on the ground as teammates swarmed him ... so nothing wrong there.

But shortly afterward, Holmes turned into LeBron James on the sideline and dramatically tossed chalk powder into the air, which, under the league's current procedures, would have qualified for a 15-yard penalty.

"We didn't see it because by that time (officials) had turned to face the try," said Pereira. "He had gotten up, and gone to the sidelines. But he used the ball as a prop."[/quote]


[url="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11339809"]http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11339809[/url]


What a horseshit excuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='744629' date='Feb 5 2009, 09:47 AM']Obviously his feet were down. I'll concede that fact.
But, their should have been a penalty called after that catch . . .
What a horseshit excuse.[/quote]
Any penalty that happened after the play (such as excesive celebration) would have been added the kick-off, it would not have taken away the score.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744636' date='Feb 5 2009, 10:01 AM']Any penalty that happened after the play (such as excesive celebration) would have been added the kick-off, it would not have taken away the score.[/quote]


Yeah, but are you telling me that giving Warner and Fitzgerald an extra 15 yards wouldn't have made a difference? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744636' date='Feb 5 2009, 09:01 AM']Any penalty that happened after the play (such as excesive celebration) would have been added the kick-off, it would not have taken away the score.[/quote]


Thanks, but I knew that in 2006, when the excessive celebration
rule was modified.

My point was that their should have been a 15 yard penalty,
and the Stealers should have been kicking off from their own 15 yard line.
Which could/should/would have resulted in a better return and field position
to start their drive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' post='744637' date='Feb 5 2009, 10:06 AM']Yeah, but are you telling me that giving Warner and Fitzgerald an extra 15 yards wouldn't have made a difference? :huh:[/quote]
Who knows, but I'm not really concered with a "what if" situation.

The Cards ended up fumbling on that drive anyways and they needed the TD, a FG would have done them no good.

The game is over and it will never be changed, the Cards will never be conceeded a win, so whats the point of worrying about it other than just trying to hate on the stealers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744639' date='Feb 5 2009, 09:15 AM']Who knows, but I'm not really concered with a "what if" situation.

The Cards ended up fumbling on that drive anyways and they needed the TD, a FG would have done them no good.

The game is over and it will never be changed, the Cards will never be conceeded a win, so whats the point of worrying about it other than just trying to hate on the stealers.[/quote]



First off, a penalty being called like it should have,
WOULD have, not IF changed the whole drive scenario
that did play out.

Also did he really fumble? Because I have seen pics that
show Warner with the ball clearly still in his hand, and the
"pass" did go forward.


The refs did a review in the game when the Stealers and Ravens
played, and called Holmes catch a TD, after they said it wasn't on
the field. So really, why wouldn't they take the time to really review
what was the last play of the game in this instance?

And if you don't care, then let people that want to discuss it talk about it.
No one is forcing you to comment or care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744636' date='Feb 5 2009, 10:01 AM']Any penalty that happened after the play (such as excesive celebration) would have been added the kick-off, it would not have taken away the score.[/quote]


dddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='744641' date='Feb 5 2009, 10:23 AM']First off, a penalty being called like it should have,
WOULD have, not IF changed the whole drive scenario
that did play out.

Also did he really fumble? Because I have seen pics that
show Warner with the ball clearly still in his hand, and the
"pass" did go forward.


The refs did a review in the game when the Stealers and Ravens
played, and called Holmes catch a TD, after they said it wasn't on
the field. So really, why wouldn't they take the time to really review
what was the last play of the game in this instance?

And if you don't care, then let people that want to discuss it talk about it.
No one is forcing you to comment or care.[/quote]

Wah, Wah, Wah.

The Steelers won their 2nd SB with Ben as their QB and you hate it and will find any way possible to try and knock the stealers down a peg, even if it means carrying on pointless converstaions about a game that will never be changed no matter how many "whaf if" scenarios you can make up in your mind.

The game is over, the stealers won, get over it. That was the 2008 season. The 2009 season has begun.

The outcome of the game will never change, so really what is the point of wallowing on the subject?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744646' date='Feb 5 2009, 09:36 AM']Wah, Wah, Wah.

The Steelers won their 2nd SB with Ben as their QB and you hate it and will find any way possible to try and knock the stealers down a peg, even if it means carrying on pointless converstaions about a game that will never be changed no matter how many "whaf if" scenarios you can make up in your mind.

The game is over, the stealers won, get over it. That was the 2008 season. The 2009 season has begun.

The outcome of the game will never change, so really what is the point of wallowing on the subject?[/quote]



So I guess using your logic, we shouldn't discuss any games that happened
in the past, no matter how recent. Because you know, there is no changing
the outcome, wah wah wah.

And there is no wallowing. Just discussing.

[quote name='TheBeaverHunter' post='744649' date='Feb 5 2009, 09:47 AM']Who's to say if they would have kicked off - 15 yards that the Cards wouldn't have fumbled on the return or returned for a TD. That is a game of "What If".[/quote]


The only What If there is being played is What If the refs
had called a penalty that they should have called.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='744653' date='Feb 5 2009, 10:59 AM'](1)So I guess using your logic, we shouldn't discuss any games that happened
in the past, no matter how recent. Because you know, there is no changing
the outcome, wah wah wah.

(2)And there is no wallowing. Just discussing.[/quote]
I have some time, so I'll talk to a brick wall for a minute.

1. Oh no, discuss all the past games you want. Just don't play the "well if this or that had happened during the game, the ___s would have won" game you are so fond of.

2. Wallowing, discussing, call it what you want, you still hate that the Steelers won the game and wish they could somehow be stripped of the win. And thats what this one or two feet down thing and the penalty thing are really all about. Funny though, once you conceeded the feet thing, you went right into something else.

And why is it you only have a problem with the SB Champ, when it's the Steelers? You didn't go on and on about this or that when the Giants won SB 42. You didn't go on about this or that when the Colts on SB 41.

But wait, you went on about this and that when once again...the Steelers on SB 40.

Noticing a trend?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744660' date='Feb 5 2009, 11:21 AM']I have some time, so I'll talk to a brick wall for a minute.

1. Oh no, discuss all the past games you want. Just don't play the "well if this or that had happened during the game, the ___s would have won" game you are so fond of.

2. Wallowing, discussing, call it what you want, you still hate that the Steelers won the game and wish they could somehow be stripped of the win. And thats what this one or two feet down thing and the penalty thing are really all about. Funny though, once you conceeded the feet thing, you went right into something else.

And why is it you only have a problem with the SB Champ, when it's the Steelers? You didn't go on and on about this or that when the Giants won SB 42. You didn't go on about this or that when the Colts on SB 41.

But wait, you went on about this and that when once again...the Steelers on SB 40.

Noticing a trend?[/quote]

Yes. That there were a lot of sketchy calls in both of the recent Super Bowls the stealers were in. That all happened to go the stealers way.

BTW, what were the sketchy calls in the previous 2 Super Bowls? I don't recall any major discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quaker' post='744660' date='Feb 5 2009, 10:21 AM']I have some time, so I'll talk to a brick wall for a minute.[/quote]


Wait, so because I have a different stance than you,
I am a brick wall? Well wall meet wall.



[quote]1. Oh no, discuss all the past games you want. Just don't play the "well if this or that had happened during the game, the ___s would have won" game you are so fond of.[/quote]


All I said at first was that this is what SHOULD have happened.
You acted like it wouldn't have erased the score. I was like DUH.
But it WOULD have impacted/changed what really did happened.
That isn't saying the Cardinals still wouldn't have lost. Never once did I say that.

Did you need me to break out a fucking chalkboard and draw you a picture?



[quote]2. Wallowing, discussing, call it what you want, you still hate that the Steelers won the game and wish they could somehow be stripped of the win. And thats what this one or two feet down thing and the penalty issue thing are really all about. Funny though, once you conceeded the feet thing, you went right into something else.

And why is it you only have a problem with the SB Champ, when it's the Steelers? You didn't go on and on about this or that when the Giants won SB 42. You didn't go on about this or that when the Colts on SB 41.

But wait, you went on about this and that when once again...the Steelers on SB 40.[/quote]

Are you saying you don't hate that the Stealers won?

Again, read above.


And you act as if I am the only person in the World discussing this stuff.
It has been discussed/posted on ESPN, CBS, NBC, FOX Sports, Pro Football Talk
and every other major sporting News site on the internet. Yet, because I am
discussing the same things, I am "wallowing"? Whatever.





[quote]Noticing a trend?[/quote]

Yeah, I noticed that the last 2 Super Bowls the Stealers have won,
there has been a Stealer bias by the refs. I am not the only person
in the World to notice it though. Even the Head of Officiating said
that Holmes should have been penalized, and gave some bullshit
excuse. But no, leave it to YOU to try and act like it is only me
"wallowing" in another questionable Stealers Championship.

Fuck off, seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...