data
Forbes #1
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 50,380
No because Dez was stumbling after he lept. It's like a legal definition.Well now we know that dez indeed did catch it.
No because Dez was stumbling after he lept. It's like a legal definition.Well now we know that dez indeed did catch it.
...and Nick Foles.Hate the Eagles all you want, but Doug Pederson EARNED that Super Bowl.
Wow.
To argue otherwise is retarded at this point. Just as retarded is to argue that Ertz did catch it given the current idiotic rules.Well now we know that dez indeed did catch it.
Maybe, but that is a shitty interpretation given the Dez interpretation then.NoDak (and the refs interpretation) is that Ertz was never going to the ground, but voluntarily chose to dive...therefore, your above rule never comes into play.
He took 3 steps and dove. What is this stumbling nonsense?No because Dez was stumbling after he lept. It's like a legal definition.
When they didn't call pi on Pats 1st drive when they were mugging Gronk you knew the NFL wanted a philly winTo argue otherwise is retarded at this point. Just as retarded is to argue that Ertz did catch it given the current idiotic rules.
Dez was not stumbling. He dove for the end zone.No because Dez was stumbling after he lept. It's like a legal definition.
NFL's definition is stupid. But that's what it is...He took 3 steps and dove. What is this stumbling nonsense?
Yep, what the NFL just did was find the conclusion they want and worked backwards to make it semi-plausibleMaybe, but that is a shitty interpretation given the Dez interpretation then.
Pretty much.Yep, what the NFL just did was find the conclusion they want and worked backwards to make it semi-plausible
If he didn't dive, would he have gone to the ground or kept running?Dez was not stumbling. He dove for the end zone.