PDA

View Full Version : Are The Broncos & Chargers Destined To Have Shenanigans During Games?


RhymesayersDU
10-19-2009, 09:55 PM
So hear me out here. I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have won, I'm not trying to dampen the mood, etc. I'm really not.

But doesn't anybody find it odd that last year there was a blown call, and this year (IMO) there was one? I personally don't think Stokley was in. I'm glad we won, and considering how our defense was playing there's no guarantee the Chargers would have come back to tie (assuming we kick a FG) or stop us on 4th if we go for it.

I just see the situations are being so similar, very parallel to each other, etc.

Again, not trying to be a wet blanket. This stuff is wild. Perhaps Broncos/Chargers will always have wild endings, etc, while these players are on the respective teams?

Inkana7
10-19-2009, 09:56 PM
You think that McDaniels hesitates for a second not to sneak it in from the 1/2 inch line?

But I think that call was correct.

STBumpkin
10-19-2009, 09:57 PM
We would have knocked it in on 4th down anyway. Non issue.

epicSocialism4tw
10-19-2009, 09:58 PM
We beat their butts on their own turf.

It didnt matter if Stoke was an inch short of the end zone on that play or not, the Broncos were taking that game from the Chargers play after play.

Kid A
10-19-2009, 09:59 PM
Based on the placement of his feet right when he caught the ball (his heels were past the line on the blue paint) and the positioning of his body, I'm pretty sure the ball was across the line.

Close call, but that's what it looked like to me. Not sure if that's homer eyes, but I thought he didn't get in until the third or so replay.

RhymesayersDU
10-19-2009, 10:00 PM
Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from our boys.

Defense played like killers in the second half. They get all my respect.

I'm just saying, so weird that at the least a questionable call happens late 2 years in a row. Now that the Broncos are actually competing with the Chargers, this is the stuff epic rivalries are made of. Wild game.

IHaveALight
10-19-2009, 10:08 PM
It was a TD. He had control of the ball and both feet in the endzone. Even though the ball didn't cross the plane, it is still a TD by rule. They made the right call, this is exactly how the ref explained it too. The analysts didn't see, hear or understand this hence it never got pointed out. The same thing happened last year with Santonio Holmes I believe against Cinci. Could be wrong on the details, there was a big mess made about it in the media but bottom line was they made the right call per the NFL rules.

Garcia Bronco
10-19-2009, 10:09 PM
He caught the ball in the endzone.

RhymesayersDU
10-19-2009, 10:12 PM
It was a TD. He had control of the ball and both feet in the endzone. Even though the ball didn't cross the plane, it is still a TD by rule. They made the right call, this is exactly how the ref explained it too. The analysts didn't see, hear or understand this hence it never got pointed out. The same thing happened last year with Santonio Holmes I believe against Cinci. Could be wrong on the details, there was a big mess made about it in the media but bottom line was they made the right call per the NFL rules.

Interesting. Gracias for the explanation.

OABB
10-19-2009, 10:13 PM
that call wasn't nearly as bad as the bs pi they called on us with the uncatchable ball.

tsiguy96
10-19-2009, 10:14 PM
we won by 11, not be 3 or 4 or 7. this TD was icing on the cake.

ColoradoDarin
10-19-2009, 10:15 PM
Ref said the call was confirmed, he did not say there wasn't enough to overrule.

Looked to me like he got in. I don't know what the announcers were talking about having both feet down in order to break the goal line either.

enlightning
10-19-2009, 10:16 PM
It was a TD. He had control of the ball and both feet in the endzone. Even though the ball didn't cross the plane, it is still a TD by rule. They made the right call, this is exactly how the ref explained it too. The analysts didn't see, hear or understand this hence it never got pointed out. The same thing happened last year with Santonio Holmes I believe against Cinci. Could be wrong on the details, there was a big mess made about it in the media but bottom line was they made the right call per the NFL rules.

You still have to break the plane. Last years play was with Holmes vs the Ravens and again that was tough to tell because the NFL (or networks) refuses to camp cameras on the goalline (so they went with the call on the field then too). It would make the decision black and white. Denver probably punches it in on 4th down; but it shouldve been 4th down.

tsiguy96
10-19-2009, 10:17 PM
Ref said the call was confirmed, he did not say there wasn't enough to overrule.

Looked to me like he got in. I don't know what the announcers were talking about having both feet down in order to break the goal line either.

thats why people are confused, you dont need both feet down to get a TD, the ball needs to cross the line.

enlightning
10-19-2009, 10:18 PM
thats why people are confused, you dont need both feet down to get a TD, the ball needs to cross the line.

You need two feet down for possession. Can't score a TD without possession of the football.

Rock Chalk
10-19-2009, 10:18 PM
Who gives a ****. The chargers got a god damn break on a bogus PI call on 3rd down anyway.

It all evened out this game.

ColoradoDarin
10-19-2009, 10:22 PM
You need two feet down for possession. Can't score a TD without possession of the football.

But forward progress is counted from where you first touch the football (this was explained in a game yesterday).

Taco John
10-19-2009, 10:24 PM
I didn't think Stokley was in at first. But after watching it from the overhead angle, I don't know how you can't give him forward progress there. The answer is: you have to.

IHaveALight
10-19-2009, 10:27 PM
You still have to break the plane. Last years play was with Holmes vs the Ravens and again that was tough to tell because the NFL (or networks) refuses to camp cameras on the goalline (so they went with the call on the field then too). It would make the decision black and white. Denver probably punches it in on 4th down; but it shouldve been 4th down.

I'm pretty sure that if you have both feet in the endzone the ball doesn't have to cross the plane. It's a weird and controversial rule, but it is the rule. Maybe someone out there can look this up to be certain?

Rock Chalk
10-19-2009, 10:30 PM
I'm pretty sure that if you have both feet in the endzone the ball doesn't have to cross the plane. It's a weird and controversial rule, but it is the rule. Maybe someone out there can look this up to be certain?

No.

Forward progress is where the ball is first deigned to be caught. While his feet were not down the ball was in the end zone and since he maintained possession of the ball through the catch, forward progress was IN the end zone.

Thus.

Touchdown.

Kyle
10-19-2009, 10:30 PM
two feet in the endzone with posession gives you a TD. How many sideline plays are caught with the call CLEARLY out of bounds but two big toes on the ground in the endzone with posession? Ball breaking plane isn't the only way to get a touchdown.

BigPlayShay
10-19-2009, 10:31 PM
NO Shenanigans, just a straight up ****ing beat down of the sparkies.

Bronx33
10-19-2009, 10:36 PM
I welcome Shenanigans.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-19-2009, 10:40 PM
The only person who knows whether that ball was over the plane when Stokley's feet were down is the line judge, and he said it was a TD. That's good enough for me. None of the camera angles showed where the ball was in the verticle plane.

Jekyll15Hyde
10-19-2009, 10:44 PM
two feet in the endzone with posession gives you a TD. How many sideline plays are caught with the call CLEARLY out of bounds but two big toes on the ground in the endzone with posession? Ball breaking plane isn't the only way to get a touchdown.

We have a winner. Yes, the 2 feet down oddity of a rule exists. The referee explained it perfectly.

Broncoman13
10-19-2009, 10:44 PM
It's funny how many people don't know the rules... two feet and possession in the endzone is a TD.