How can a call like that happen? honestly

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by MorKnolle

as for that intentional grounding, it was a good call because he ran back at least very close to within the tackles and the ball came no where near the line of scrimmage and no Bengal receiver was within 15 yards of it, not to mention the line got away with a hold on Peek on that play.

i'll concede the grounding call because there was infact a receiver in the area.

[tulexan]

It was a great call. I mean all fumbles spiral for 5 yards. I actually went back and looked at the game. It turns out that Carr didn't have 1 fumble, he had 9 more that the ref missed. Some were so bad that they landed 20-30 yards away from him. I guess we got lucky

[BREAZE]

Never underestimate the power of Vegas...

[TD]

Originally Posted by aliaspgk

I just cant believe this isnt a bigger deal to anyone, ESPN and other highlight shows.

I saw the play on ESPN and Tom Jackson went on a 20 second rant about how terrible the call was. What do you want them to do; devote a whole Sportscenter to it and demand an investigation from the commissioners office?

The Texans have enought problems without worrying about perceived media slights.

[WhoDeyBengals]

Originally Posted by ojthecat

The calls that you speak of were in fact penalties. The procedure call was an illegal formation call and was correct the wr covered the te. The Grounding was grounding because the ball did not get back to the line. The fact is these are the rules. The fumble that was bs.

Um, on the grounding penalty, you're 100% wrong. Rudi Johnson was within 5 yards of where the ball landed. Take your homer blinders off.

[WhoDeyBengals]

Originally Posted by BREAZE

Never underestimate the power of Vegas...

Texans beat the spread. I don't think this is a fair statement.

[chuckm]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyBengals

Um, on the grounding penalty, you're 100% wrong. Rudi Johnson was within 5 yards of where the ball landed. Take your homer blinders off.

1. Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

2. Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

3. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

Would you say Rudi Johnson had a realistic chance of catching the pass?

[Bottle-O-Bud]

Okay robbed by the ref or robbed by todd wade who got schooled by atleast 2 steps by that cincy player..........

[Exascor]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyBengals

Um, on the grounding penalty, you're 100% wrong. Rudi Johnson was within 5 yards of where the ball landed. Take your homer blinders off.

On the replay it did show Rudi coming back for the ball. I'm not sure where he was when Palmer threw it but he did end up within 10 yards of the ball. I felt that that call kinda washed with the PI call on Faggins. Faggins had good coverage. Both were bad calls IMO.

All of the calls pale compared to one where the officials had 2 chances to get it right and failed both times.

[Runner]

Originally Posted by Bottle-O-Bud

Okay robbed by the ref or robbed by todd wade who got schooled by atleast 2 steps by that cincy player..........

Didn't you read the feature article in the Chronicle during training camp? Todd Wade is so good he doesn't even have to compete for a starting position. According to that write-up, we're solid at RT, LT is the only problem.

[BREAZE]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyBengals

Texans beat the spread. I don't think this is a fair statement.

...and if the Bengals had capitalized with a TD?

[WhoDeyBengals]

Originally Posted by chuckm

1. Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

2. Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

3. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

Would you say Rudi Johnson had a realistic chance of catching the pass?

The measure of whether or not an offensive player has a realistic chance of catching the ball is determined by whether or not there are any eligible players in the vicinity of where the pass lands. The Bengals had a player in the vicinity of where the pass landed. Therefore, the intentional grounding penalty was a bad call.

Furthermore, the pass interference penalty on Faggins was a questionable call - but there were so many ticky tack penalties called in this game, I'm angry for both sides. That officiating staff needs to be dragged into the streets of Houston and beaten severely. Preferably by a firing squad armed with penalty flags (those things hurt if you get hit with one!).

Anyhow - good luck with the rest of your season.

[WhoDeyBengals]

Originally Posted by BREAZE

...and if the Bengals had capitalized with a TD?

Did that happen?

I hear a lot of "what if"'s here.

[TEXANS84]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyBengals

The measure of whether or not an offensive player has a realistic chance of catching the ball is determined by whether or not there are any eligible players in the vicinity of where the pass lands. The Bengals had a player in the vicinity of where the pass landed. Therefore, the intentional grounding penalty was a bad call.

Remember, the pass never made it past the line of scrimmage. That call was questionable as well, but it wasn't as blatantly horrible of a call as the fumble.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by TEXANS84

Remember, the pass never made it past the line of scrimmage. That call was questionable as well, but it wasn't as blatantly horrible of a call as the fumble.

It doesn't have to if an eligible receiver is in the area...and there was.

[covcath1]

At least you all didn't have to see Carr taking more sacks if they would have kept possesion. It was like your offensive line had stopped playing the last few drives.

[BREAZE]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyBengals

Did that happen?

I hear a lot of "what if"'s here.

Typical response from the benefactor.

"What if's" result from doubts. Doubts result from refs reviewing a play and trying to explain "we did not see what we saw". To be fair I'm not suggesting its 100% Vegas, but I am saying its unfortunate you have to consider these things when stunts like yesterday are pulled.

Now if you were equally fair you might agree that refs don't have 100% control of the outcome. You are correct...the Bengals did not score a TD, but the opportunity was there and put on a silver platter!

[TEXANS84]

[Vinny]

That shot looks more like a fumble than an inc pass. The ball didn't come out until the elbow was already hit.

[CinciBengals03]

stop complaining about one play, I agree with the refs when there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. It looks more like he's pushing the ball with his palm without his fingers even around it... thus is being a fumble. The bengals got screwed on big plays as well, it really does even out.