Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

riddle me this donko fans.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joshecalpoly
    replied
    Originally posted by baphamet View Post
    yes it's very close, which is why it didn't get over-turned. had it been ruled out it wouldn't have gotten overturned then either. but you can clearly see his toe right on the line, it just has to be touching the line to be out and it is.

    so yeah, i'm not saying it should have been over-turned, i'm simply saying it was the wrong call initially (but very close) and he was out, the broncos got away with one.

    oh well though, moving on from that, it's still a W for you guys no matter what anyways.
    Funny thing is last weekend I was listening to the SD post game commentary and they were talking about this play and it sounded like they agreed it should of stood as a TD.

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshecalpoly View Post
    It is inconclusive that his toes were over the line because of the color of shoe and the angle. The field judge did not see him go out as his heals appear to be in and that's why the ruling on the field stood. Even if he had gone out we got the ball back and it would have been tied. Either way a blocked extra point takes a lot of momentum away from a team and it could have easily tipped the scale in our favor. There is no way you can say we should have lost that game definitively.
    yes it's very close, which is why it didn't get over-turned. had it been ruled out it wouldn't have gotten overturned then either. but you can clearly see his toe right on the line, it just has to be touching the line to be out and it is.

    so yeah, i'm not saying it should have been over-turned, i'm simply saying it was the wrong call initially (but very close) and he was out, the broncos got away with one.

    oh well though, moving on from that, it's still a W for you guys no matter what anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshecalpoly
    replied
    It is inconclusive that his toes were over the line because of the color of shoe and the angle. The field judge did not see him go out as his heals appear to be in and that's why the ruling on the field stood. Even if he had gone out we got the ball back and it would have been tied. Either way a blocked extra point takes a lot of momentum away from a team and it could have easily tipped the scale in our favor. There is no way you can say we should have lost that game definitively.

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    Originally posted by #87Birdman View Post
    Actually no the article I posted shows multiple sites including his heel. But since you seem to be slow on understanding I will try to help you once again.

    Your picture shows his toe out. It also shows his heel angled towards the sideline. Therfore if his heel should be out of bounds and it isn't unless he had magically altered feet.

    It isn't weak smack because I don't have a rebuttal it is weak because it has been proven wrong yet you stick to it and are unable to understand basic geometry
    you are talking about the original article you posted right? because that only shows the back of his foot and it wasn't even touching the ground just as i said, its a bad angle.

    i also love how you said its been proven wrong yet when i read your article they even cant conclude if he was in or out. so how is it proven wrong exactly?

    its because those are bad angles and dont proven anything either way, the pic i provided does.

    Leave a comment:


  • #87Birdman
    replied
    Originally posted by baphamet View Post
    my picture shows the front of his foot, not his heal like your picture.

    his heal isnt even touching the ground, he is pushing off with the front of his foot. that is why the angle you showed looks as if his foot in in bounds

    but from the angle i posted it shows exactly where his toe is which is clearly touching the line, end of story.

    you call it fake smack but whats really going on here is you believing only what you want to believe when the evidence is right in front of your face. don't worry, it still counts as a win, it was just a gifted win by the refs, that's all.

    by the way, whenever a donko an says "weak smack" because they don't like what i said, that actually means it's good smack so TYVM
    Actually no the article I posted shows multiple sites including his heel. But since you seem to be slow on understanding I will try to help you once again.

    Your picture shows his toe out. It also shows his heel angled towards the sideline. Therfore if his heel should be out of bounds and it isn't unless he had magically altered feet.

    It isn't weak smack because I don't have a rebuttal it is weak because it has been proven wrong yet you stick to it and are unable to understand basic geometry

    Leave a comment:


  • Three peat
    replied
    Originally posted by ManningRules View Post
    And I thought the Patsie fans were pathetic with their weak smack.
    Yes we have weak smack but were in the playoffs, don is are not and the best thing about that is the dolphins are a head of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    Originally posted by ManningRules View Post
    And I thought the Patsie fans were pathetic with their weak smack.
    "weak smack" another compliment, thanks a lot!

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    Originally posted by #87Birdman View Post
    I will break this down add simple as I can. Try to follow along it might be hard but I will at least try to help you understand.

    Your photo shows his heel being closer to the sideline.

    You say his foot is clearly out of bounds.

    Therefore those two things show his heel should be way out of bounds.

    I than post an article that shows his heel is inbounds.

    Therefore your photo across the field is proven to be inaccurate. If it wasn't the picture I posted would show his heel well out of bounds. It didn't.

    So once again post a better picture that hasn't been disproven or stop running your weak false smack.
    my picture shows the front of his foot, not his heal like your picture.

    his heal isnt even touching the ground, he is pushing off with the front of his foot. that is why the angle you showed looks as if his foot in in bounds

    but from the angle i posted it shows exactly where his toe is which is clearly touching the line, end of story.

    you call it fake smack but whats really going on here is you believing only what you want to believe when the evidence is right in front of your face. don't worry, it still counts as a win, it was just a gifted win by the refs, that's all.

    by the way, whenever a donko an says "weak smack" because they don't like what i said, that actually means it's good smack so TYVM
    Last edited by baphamet; 11-27-2016, 06:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ManningRules
    replied
    And I thought the Patsie fans were pathetic with their weak smack.

    Leave a comment:


  • #87Birdman
    replied
    Originally posted by baphamet View Post
    with the pic i provided you can see his foot clearly touching the line, that is my proof. you can deny it all you want and at the end of the day it doesn't matter because the broncos got the win

    i do accept that it was close enough not to overturn it yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he was out and it's quite clear from the angle i provided which is the only good angle that you can see his toe touching the line.

    also, this argument that the ref was right there so he should know is truly laughable. dude was running full speed and we are still having a debate with still pictures because it was so close.

    considering that i would say the ref being right there is not a solid argument because it was definitly real close and a play where the guy was running full speed.
    I will break this down add simple as I can. Try to follow along it might be hard but I will at least try to help you understand.

    Your photo shows his heel being closer to the sideline.

    You say his foot is clearly out of bounds.

    Therefore those two things show his heel should be way out of bounds.

    I than post an article that shows his heel is inbounds.

    Therefore your photo across the field is proven to be inaccurate. If it wasn't the picture I posted would show his heel well out of bounds. It didn't.

    So once again post a better picture that hasn't been disproven or stop running your weak false smack.

    Leave a comment:


  • arapaho
    replied
    The crying by bap is nonstop...his tears of frustration are tasty tho

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    Originally posted by #87Birdman View Post
    You still going on with this. Prove with an angle down the sideline or accept there wasn't enough evidence to overturn because that angle shows him in your angle is across the field. Burden of proof is on you to prove without a doubt he was out and a cross field angle isn't going to do that.
    with the pic i provided you can see his foot clearly touching the line, that is my proof. you can deny it all you want and at the end of the day it doesn't matter because the broncos got the win

    i do accept that it was close enough not to overturn it yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he was out and it's quite clear from the angle i provided which is the only good angle that you can see his toe touching the line.

    also, this argument that the ref was right there so he should know is truly laughable. dude was running full speed and we are still having a debate with still pictures because it was so close.

    considering that i would say the ref being right there is not a solid argument because it was definitly real close and a play where the guy was running full speed.

    Leave a comment:


  • #87Birdman
    replied
    Originally posted by baphamet View Post
    that is the worst angle and you cannot even see where his foot is planted, kid.
    You still going on with this. Prove with an angle down the sideline or accept there wasn't enough evidence to overturn because that angle shows him in your angle is across the field. Burden of proof is on you to prove without a doubt he was out and a cross field angle isn't going to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • baphamet
    replied
    Originally posted by ManningRules View Post
    His toe is not on the line. Open your eyes kid.
    that is the worst angle and you cannot even see where his foot is planted, kid.

    Leave a comment:


  • ManningRules
    replied
    Originally posted by ManningRules View Post
    His toe is not on the line. Open your eyes kid.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X