PDA

View Full Version : How Do You Not Challenge That?????


lordofgun
11-03-2002, 12:53 PM
Ridiculous. If there was any play to challenge, it was that Riemersma TD.
Herdwatcher
11-03-2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by lordofgun
Ridiculous. If there was any play to challenge, it was that Riemersma TD.

The view just wasn't there to turn the call around to a TD.
All I seen was the players in front of him, the feet may have been in the shot, but you couldn't see where they were, as to the line.
Mr. Miyagi
11-03-2002, 01:34 PM
It WAS a TD. It WAS a bad call. But no way there was enough evidence to overturn the call.

Hey, we just scored. A 10 point game is much better than a 17 point game to comeback.
JayWood
11-03-2002, 01:41 PM
We have seen this team come out of the locker room fired up before, if at any time so far this season we need them to do that its right now. Only down by 10, lets get out quick and score a TD. Still lots of football to play..lest go bills!!
DIHARD2
11-03-2002, 02:30 PM
a screen pass with so many yards backed up. Stupid ^&65%77^54544%^^%^% coaching call
Bert102176
11-03-2002, 03:18 PM
Williams is an idiot that's how you don't challenge it
Ebenezer
11-03-2002, 04:36 PM
It would have been a nice challenge but from the replays they showed at the game there was no proof to reverse the play.
casdhf
11-03-2002, 04:41 PM
Exactly, there was no chance of that play counting. Every replay they showed was inconclusive. From one view it looked like riemersma was out of bounds before the ball even got there
casdhf
11-03-2002, 04:44 PM
I don't think KC's defense will be anything like the Pats...
WCoastFin
11-03-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by lordofgun
Ridiculous. If there was any play to challenge, it was that Riemersma TD.

first off, I dont think it was a TD but they had ugly camera angles so I wouldnt really know, and secondly I dont think there wouldve been enough evidence to overturn the call, and last but not least it would not have made any diffrence they :spanku: your team.
JefftheBillsfan
11-03-2002, 07:29 PM
it def should have been reviewed...
ublinkwescore
11-03-2002, 08:14 PM
I guarantee all you boobirds that we won't see the same team (bills) we saw today in two weeks. We're gonna come out p'd off and focused as can be against the Chiefs. The Chiefs don't want to see us.
colin
11-03-2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by ublinkwescore
I guarantee all you boobirds that we won't see the same team (bills) we saw today in two weeks. We're gonna come out p'd off and focused as can be against the Chiefs. The Chiefs don't want to see us.

I sure hope so.
TigerJ
11-03-2002, 09:21 PM
I missed the first part of the game, but I taped it. When did the controversial call happen? I'm not fond of looking at lousy play on tape, but if I know where in the game it happened, I can find it with a minimum of self torture.
Jman
11-03-2002, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by WCoastFin
and last but not least it would not have made any diffrence they :spanku: your team.

What happened to the Bills today isn't nearly as bad as what Farve's Packers are going to do to LUCAS' Phins...

THAT will be a brutal one...

:fishfry:
Buffarama
11-03-2002, 10:15 PM
I think JR was in, but actually a Bills reciever, possibly Price, ran into the the back of him, and literally kicked his foot out of bound just before he caught it. I don't think it would have counted.
vmark11
11-03-2002, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Herdwatcher


The view just wasn't there to turn the call around to a TD.
All I seen was the players in front of him, the feet may have been in the shot, but you couldn't see where they were, as to the line.

All moot stuff. Remember, these are NFL officials we're talking about. See the Giants-Eagles game last week? The Giants WR catches the ball, takes 3 steps, and has the ball come out after his knee hit. Eagles challenge and the call is reversed to incomplete....absolutely one of the most disgraceful calls and completely impossible for anybody to miss a call like that after seeing it in slow motion.

Anyways, the point is whenever you have a close play of that magnitude in the endzone, especially in the 1st half, you challenge it without thinking twice whether it's conclusive or not; because you just never know.
Shiny Chicken
11-04-2002, 12:06 AM
I think we should have challenged it to... even if our chances were say.. only 1 in 4... it was worth the shot...
Rebecky
11-04-2002, 12:15 AM
Definitely should have been challenged -- you can't ever be sure how the officials will rule. Could have turned the game -- and what did we have to lose? A TO right before the half. Big doo. I can't imagine what GW was thinking in letting that go.

Between that and the punt on the 32, I'm beginning to suspect that someone messed with his "charts" before the game.
Typ0
11-04-2002, 12:21 AM
Greg Williams is a bonehead with game time decisions. We will never win a championship with him at the helm he must be fired at the end of the season.
Novacane
11-04-2002, 09:35 AM
That play would not have been overturned. That is one thing I don't critisize GW for. There is plenty other things to rip on him about.
lordofgun
11-04-2002, 09:38 AM
GW challenges everything else!!!

I saw a play last week where the TV announcers and fans were shocked by an overturned call where it looked conclusively that the refs got the call right originally. Either the refs had another angle on the play that the audience coiuldn't see, or the refs were just ******ed.

Either way, it was worth a shot in the first half on a TD.
Novacane
11-04-2002, 09:45 AM
It may have been worth a shot. I think he has been ripped for so many stupid challenges that he is gun shy. Not to defend him.
I think he should be canned
Bert102176
11-04-2002, 10:16 PM
with the way Williams coaches I'm not sure if the team ever will be focused enough to win the games that really count
mybills
11-05-2002, 08:56 AM
Buffarama, it was Reed that went for it too. I paused the tape over and over again. It WAS a TD, and it should have been challenged. Reed hit Jay's hip as he was going out but it was caught with his toes still in.