PDA

View Full Version : KC writers are crying about the Mario fumble return


DiehardChris
09-10-2007, 07:18 PM
WAAAAHHHH!!!!! (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/268385.html)

You know what? I don't even disagree with the guy. I don't think the receiver made 'a football move' or whatever - so it's fine to complain about the call - but this guy is saying that it changed the complexion of the game, and that the running game was rendered useless because of it since KC had to try and catch up... and of course ZERO credit is given to the Texans defense. How about "it was a bad call, but the Texans flat out, out-played the Chiefs.

Oh well, whatever. I'm not going to stoop low enough to go to their site and post about it. We won. Let them cry, change their diapers, and show no class like this guy and LJ did. Herm Edwards was clearly not happy about the call, but he has way too much class to cry about it. He just said 'that was the call and there's nothing we can do'.

It just goes to show you what a complete laughing stock the Texans have been nationally. Even the local honk reporters don't want to imagine that their bad football team is worse than our formally terrible team.

Sigh.

Whatever - with winning comes respect, and we're on our way.

MissouriTexan
09-10-2007, 07:23 PM
Thanks for the link. I really did think that was a fumble, not an incomplete pass, but what do the rest of you out there think?

Seņor Stan
09-10-2007, 07:23 PM
WAAAAHHHH!!!!! (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/268385.html)

You know what? I don't even disagree with the guy. I don't think the receiver made 'a football move' or whatever - so it's fine to complain about the call - but this guy is saying that it changed the complexion of the game, and that the running game was rendered useless because of it since KC had to try and catch up... and of course ZERO credit is given to the Texans defense. How about "it was a bad call, but the Texans flat out, out-played the Chiefs.

Oh well, whatever. I'm not going to stoop low enough to go to their site and post about it. We won. Let them cry, change their diapers, and show no class like this guy and LJ did. Herm Edwards was clearly not happy about the call, but he has way too much class to cry about it. He just said 'that was the call and there's nothing we can do'.

It just goes to show you what a complete laughing stock the Texans have been nationally. Even the local honk reporters don't want to imagine that their bad football team is worse than our formally terrible team.

Sigh.

Whatever - with winning comes respect, and we're on our way.

I think the title to the article was "Things That Losers Say"

They would be singing a different tune if Wilson had caught the ball in the end zone and then got it blasted loose. Somehow I think they would be screaming "TOUCHDOWN"!

TexanSam
09-10-2007, 07:29 PM
Is there a replay of that particular play? I was too busy celebrating the TD to look at the replay on the big screen.

CTWade
09-10-2007, 07:32 PM
I've read Whitlock's article earlier today, linked over from ESPN's Hashmark's guy. Also read another article by him on FoxSports, trying to explain why he choose the Saints to win in an upset over the Colts and bemoan his past failed relationships with females.

Later I've read from Ric or Roy over on HPF that for 2007 the NFL changed the rules so that this year you no longer need to make a football move for it to be called a catch, only that you have possession and have two feet on the ground. So I guess they can't call bad refereeing for losing this one.

DiehardChris
09-10-2007, 07:36 PM
The "football move" thing is definitely a strange rule. It's hard to interpret... basically everything depends on what the call on the field is. Had that not been the call on the field, it would have gone KC's way.

Also - RE: "Things That Losers Say" - that is absolutely dead on. LOL

JohnsonFan
09-10-2007, 07:37 PM
lol, thanks for the link, it was a fumble

DiehardChris
09-10-2007, 07:38 PM
Later I've raid from Ric or Roy over on HPF that for 2007 the NFL changed the rules so that this year you no longer need to make a football move for it to be called a catch, only that you have possession and have two feet on the ground. So I guess they can't call bad refereeing for losing this one.

I heard about that too.

You'd think an NFL beat writer would know that before crying about the call in his column.

And he does a lot of national stuff too. For shame.

eriadoc
09-10-2007, 07:49 PM
It was a fumble. You either hang onto the ball or you don't. He caught the ball, tucked it, and turned. The hit knocked it loose. To say it wasn't a "football move" is BS, because in reality, if you catch the ball and tuck it away, you're making a football move - rules lawyers be damned.

Some of the rules lawyering that goes on in football retards the progress of the game. Sometimes, it's really that simple - he caught it, he got hit, he lost it. Done.

OD's catch last year was a catch as well. If he had lost it to a hit, it would have been a fumble. It's really not that hard to see or figure out, unless they make it that way.

pappy
09-10-2007, 08:27 PM
WAAAAHHHH!!!!! (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/268385.html)

You know what? I don't even disagree with the guy. I don't think the receiver made 'a football move' or whatever - so it's fine to complain about the call - but this guy is saying that it changed the complexion of the game, and that the running game was rendered useless because of it since KC had to try and catch up... and of course ZERO credit is given to the Texans defense. How about "it was a bad call, but the Texans flat out, out-played the Chiefs.

Oh well, whatever. I'm not going to stoop low enough to go to their site and post about it. We won. Let them cry, change their diapers, and show no class like this guy and LJ did. Herm Edwards was clearly not happy about the call, but he has way too much class to cry about it. He just said 'that was the call and there's nothing we can do'.

It just goes to show you what a complete laughing stock the Texans have been nationally. Even the local honk reporters don't want to imagine that their bad football team is worse than our formally terrible team.

Sigh.

Whatever - with winning comes respect, and we're on our way.

The new nfl rule says its a completion if a receiver has possession with two feet down . sorry ! football move not needed this year .

Porky
09-10-2007, 08:38 PM
It was a fumble. Not even close. First off, the rule changed. Just need to get two feet planted. Second, even under the old rule, that was a fumble. CLEARLY. It was a desperation move on Herm's part to throw the flag.

michaelm
09-10-2007, 08:44 PM
Not debating the fumble ruling, or the rule change regarding a reception, but does anyone have a link to the new rule? None of the articles I saw mentioned that rule change.

Runner
09-10-2007, 09:05 PM
I'm pretty sure if the roles were reversed, Texans fans would be complaining about the same thing.

For instance, this thread is instructional. The "complaining" about this play actually evolved as different aspects of the complaints were debunked. Very nice.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31142

DiehardChris
09-10-2007, 09:09 PM
Er, whatever. I'm saying regardless of it being a bad call or not - the writer gave Houston ZERO credit.

Hervoyel
09-10-2007, 09:22 PM
I thought it was close enough to go either way and personally, I felt like it was probably closer to being an incomplete pass than a catch-turn-fumble.

I'm glad I was wrong but that's the game of football and there have been plenty of times when I felt the exact opposite about a play and believed that we got screwed on the call. It goes both ways and if you watch the game then you know that.

HJam72
09-10-2007, 09:28 PM
I thought he made a football move when he slammed to the turf on his back. :d: Seems like a typical football move to me.

real
09-10-2007, 09:52 PM
The Chiefs just got beat...

We were the better team last Sunday....the end.

hookinreds
09-10-2007, 11:11 PM
WAAAAHHHH!!!!! (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/268385.html)

You know what? I don't even disagree with the guy. I don't think the receiver made 'a football move' or whatever - so it's fine to complain about the call -

So you're both wrong.:d:

Leahmic223
09-10-2007, 11:21 PM
It was a fumble. You either hang onto the ball or you don't. He caught the ball, tucked it, and turned. The hit knocked it loose. To say it wasn't a "football move" is BS, because in reality, if you catch the ball and tuck it away, you're making a football move - rules lawyers be damned.

Some of the rules lawyering that goes on in football retards the progress of the game. Sometimes, it's really that simple - he caught it, he got hit, he lost it. Done.

OD's catch last year was a catch as well. If he had lost it to a hit, it would have been a fumble. It's really not that hard to see or figure out, unless they make it that way.


Exactly. The guy wasn't hit from behind, he caught it, tucked, and turned. When I was watching I told my buddies that exact same thing. I say "It is close, but the fact that he turned around could be interpreted as a football move."

Also, with what LJ said and now the media acting as if the Texans defense just got lucky...

I like how Herm when asked about these things laughs first and says "If...you can make a lot of if's, but the reality is out on the field."

Of course as a above average coach he isn't going to make excuses for his team. I bet the players that come up and whine to him he would tell them to shut up and play football. You think the play was incomplete, well hold onto the ball and there wouldn't be a fumble in the first place.

TheDrifter
09-10-2007, 11:22 PM
First....I think it was a fumble. Though I know everyone has a different view of what is and isnt. Looked like a catch to me.

Second, whiny sports writers looking for excuses annoy me. Chiefs were just the lesser team on Sunday. The Chargers, a good team, were victims of the worst missed official call I saw on opening day. The reason San Diego sports writers arent pointing to it big time today is because inspite of that the Chargers came back together and still won the game. Thats how good teams handle adversity.

In other words....get over it.

Dawgnme
09-11-2007, 12:36 AM
Hmmm...

Didn't see them mention the "fumble" they recovered on 'Dre.

Scooter
09-11-2007, 01:22 AM
regardless of whether it was earned from a ref's standpoint (which it was ... catch, secure, forward movement = football move), we lost a game last season because of this call when owen daniels made less of a move and didnt make a full turn before the ball being batted out.

legit or not, i for one am taking it. it was as definition a fumble. we lost this call before and if it takes a questionable decision to amp our defense around the future anchor, we as texans should be in full support. mario has taken more unprovoked critism than anyone else in the league and whether earned or not his play provided a day in the sun for his effort.

bckey
09-11-2007, 02:23 AM
I thought the refs got the call right even before I knew about the rule change.

I have to admit I was extremely mad when we went 3 and out and then KC marched methodiacally down the field in the 1st quarter. But that all changed when the Texans began sustaining some drives. The defense played well except for Amobe (understandable) and some of our lbs. Faggins still scares me in coverage when he has no safety help. Steve Smith will burn him if he lines up against him ever in week 2.

I agree with something Vinny said in another thread about Schaub.

not only can he keep that up but I thought that he had first game jitters and looked like he is just getting a feel for the offense and can clean his game up a bit. I didn't think he played to all his potential yesterday...The sky is the limit.

This team will play better as the season progresses. Schaub leading the way.

Double Barrel
09-11-2007, 10:30 AM
I thought it could have gone either way at the game, but thems the breaks. Sometimes they go against you, sometimes they go your way. It is sometimes the difference in being "lucky" or not.

Didn't the officials use instant replay on that one? And it was upheld, so history records it as a fumble. Fact, end of story. Move on, Chefs. A new opponent is just a few days away for both of us.

threetoedpete
09-11-2007, 10:41 AM
I'm pretty sure if the roles were reversed, Texans fans would be complaining about the same thing.

For instance, this thread is instructional. The "complaining" about this play actually evolved as different aspects of the complaints were debunked. Very nice.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31142

Agreed. We've seen what they can do if the defense can get a play that goes for a TD when a call goes their way. Give them fourteen point lead and popeye breaks our all over the defense. So we're on the road this week and the calls will likly go against them. we'll see.

I don't blame the K.C. media for taking the "we was Robbed" angle. They are a very bad team with not much to look forward to this season. we've been there, done that, bought the tee shirt. Can you image what it is going to be llike for them covering that slop for sixteen more weeks ? Ugly.
:splits:

Goldensilence
09-11-2007, 11:23 AM
I think it'll get better for KC pete but not a whole lot. With Kennison out for a period they can at least get Bowe on the field and get him some experience and ithink Gonzalez might break a record or two...other then that yea. I feel sorry for KC fans.

As for the fumble. All i could say when it happened was if the Jameel Cook fumble was upheld with the Giants so should this one. Move on KC you got a long year ahead.

powerfuldragon
09-11-2007, 11:55 AM
i like bobby sippio.

CTWade
09-11-2007, 04:07 PM
Not debating the fumble ruling, or the rule change regarding a reception, but does anyone have a link to the new rule? None of the articles I saw mentioned that rule change.

Roy mentioned Mike Pereira explaining the new rule on the NFL network.

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/forums/showpost.php?p=105762&postcount=15

Marcus
09-11-2007, 05:26 PM
If it had been the Texans rather than the Chiefs, I'd bet more of you would have thought it was an incomplete pass.

Second Honeymoon
09-11-2007, 05:29 PM
in the spirit of the game it should have been an incomplete pass but the new rule dicates that its a fumble. plus it was called a fumble on the field thus the review would have to have been irrefutable evidence contradicting the call on the field.

in other words, if it had been called incomplete on the field, it would have probably stayed incomplete even with the new rule. but it was ruled fumble. mario wins

real
09-11-2007, 05:29 PM
If it had been the Texans rather than the Chiefs, I'd bet more of you would have thought it was an incomplete pass.

duh.

Malloy
09-11-2007, 06:02 PM
Wife: "I don't think that's possible."



Women have no imagination :)

whiskeyrbl
09-11-2007, 07:23 PM
They reviewed it didn't they??? Case closed TOUCHDOWN MARIO

PapaL
09-11-2007, 07:35 PM
I posted a comment to the effect of "take the diaper off your you head; catch, tuck, turn, fumble."

sbalderrama
09-11-2007, 07:43 PM
I'd feel more sorry for KC ( ok, not really ) except that none of their players made any attempt to dive for the ball "just in case", or touch down Mario when he was on the ground. They got caught sleep walking when the play wasn't dead yet. They could easily have prevented the fumble from being run back.

After watching that play I was thinking we ought to let Mario play some fullback. Big guy looked like a natural running with the ball. :)

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2007, 08:46 PM
I'd feel more sorry for KC ( ok, not really ) except that none of their players made any attempt to dive for the ball "just in case", or touch down Mario when he was on the ground. They got caught sleep walking when the play wasn't dead yet. They could easily have prevented the fumble from being run back.

After watching that play I was thinking we ought to let Mario play some fullback. Big guy looked like a natural running with the ball. :)

I'd get out of his way once he gets going.

:texflag:

Spled
09-11-2007, 10:44 PM
He didn't just plant his feet, he also had the time to turn around and start to move forward. Whitlock's just being a home town columnist.

eric138
09-12-2007, 07:20 AM
Not debating the fumble ruling, or the rule change regarding a reception, but does anyone have a link to the new rule? None of the articles I saw mentioned that rule change.

Forward Pass
A forward pass may be touched or caught by any eligible receiver. All members of the defensive team are eligible. Eligible receivers on the offensive team are players on either end of line (other than center, guard, or tackle) or players at least one yard behind the line at the snap. A T-formation quarterback is not eligible to receive a forward pass during a play from scrimmage.

Exception: T-formation quarterback becomes eligible if pass is previously touched by an eligible receiver.
An offensive team may make only one forward pass during each play from scrimmage (Loss of 5 yards).
The passer must be behind his line of scrimmage (Loss of down and five yards, enforced from the spot of pass).
Any eligible offensive player may catch a forward pass. If a pass is touched by one eligible offensive player and touched or caught by a second offensive player, pass completion is legal. Further, all offensive players become eligible once a pass is touched by an eligible receiver or any defensive player.
The rules concerning a forward pass and ineligible receivers:

(a) If ball is touched accidentally by an ineligible receiver on or behind his line: loss of five yards.

(b) If ineligible receiver is illegally downfield: loss of five yards.

(c) If touched or caught (intentionally or accidentally) by ineligible receiver beyond the line: loss of 5 yards.
The player who first controls and continues to maintain control of a pass will be awarded the ball even though his opponent later establishes joint control of the ball.
Any forward pass becomes incomplete and ball is dead if:

(a) Pass hits the ground or goes out of bounds.

(b) Pass hits the goal post or the crossbar of either team.
A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.
On a fourth down pass an incomplete pass results in a loss of down at the line of scrimmage.
If a personal foul is committed by the defense prior to the completion of a pass, the penalty is 15 yards from the spot where ball becomes dead.
If a personal foul is committed by the offense prior to the completion of a pass, the penalty is 15 yards from the previous line of scrimmage.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/forwardpass

Runner
09-12-2007, 08:46 AM
Forward Pass

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball.

Sounds like the way-to-loose "football move" is out. Remember that play where Troy Polamalu intercepted the ball and rolled around with it for about 20 minutes (I think that is how the play went). There was discussion it was incomplete, I guess because rolling around wasn't a football move.

Good riddance to bad verbage*.

*Misspelling of verbiage is deliberate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbage


verbage spelling, jargon
A deliberate misspelling and mispronunciation of verbiage that assimilates it to the word "garbage". More pejorative than "verbiage".

jlam
09-12-2007, 09:50 AM
Sounds like the way-to-loose "football move" is out. Remember that play where Troy Polamalu intercepted the ball and rolled around with it for about 20 minutes (I think that is how the play went). There was discussion it was incomplete, I guess because rolling around wasn't a football move.

Good riddance to bad verbage*.

*Misspelling of verbiage is deliberate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbage





This is exactly what I was thinking about. Polamalu caught an interception while pseudo-diving, rolled over on the ground while still firmly possessing the ball, got up to run the ball back and in the process he knocked the ball loose with his own knee. He picked the ball back up off the ground and continued his return, but upon the review the officials decided that catching the ball, rolling over, and getting back up to run was not a move "common to football".

I was a mostly objective observer of that game (I say mostly because I was slightly pulling for the Colts - Manning/New Orleans connection) but I was dumbfounded. Every time I've heard the term "football move" used in that context since, I've wanted to get up and judo chop the offender in the larynx.

Seņor Stan
09-12-2007, 10:53 AM
I'd get out of his way once he gets going.

:texflag:


Sincerely,

Phillip Buchannon