(01-19-2016, 01:42 PM)McC Wrote: Burfict's was a shoulder hit.   He turned his shoulder into him.  He made contact with AB's helmet but not with his helmet.  You got video evidence to prove otherwise, I will gladly stand corrected.

Looked like Shazier had body contact with him on the ground.  Say he wasn't, how do you, laying on the ground, reach around someone to grab the ball without making contact with him?  Did he hover over him? 

Really irrelevant either way, though, it was blown dead.

First off I never implied Burfict hit him with his helmet.  

Second it is apparent you didn't go back an watch the fumble.  You can not be ruled down until you have possession of the ball.  Watch the video again and see where Shazier gains possession of the ball.

(01-19-2016, 01:52 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: First off I never implied Burfict hit him with his helmet.  

Second it is apparent you didn't go back an watch the fumble.  You can not be ruled down until you have possession of the ball.  Watch the video again and see where Shazier gains possession of the ball.

I see it and stand corrected.  You just wanted me to relive that awful moment.  lol.  That is hard to watch.

(01-19-2016, 02:05 PM)McC Wrote: I see it and stand corrected.  You just wanted me to relive that awful moment.  lol.  That is hard to watch.

Yeah...No doubt it was an ugly hit.  I don't like seeing anyone get hurt.

(01-19-2016, 01:52 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: First off I never implied Burfict hit him with his helmet.  

Second it is apparent you didn't go back an watch the fumble.  You can not be ruled down until you have possession of the ball.  Watch the video again and see where Shazier gains possession of the ball.

As a typically ignorant Squealer fan, you're looking at the wrong thing.

The ref's blew the whistle because they thought Bernard was down by contact. He wasn't, of course, but it was a quick whistle.

What you are forgetting ... about the Shazier/Bernart hit ... is the following: Shazier had his helmet up, looked at Bernard, then lowered his helmet and hit him with the crown of the helmet. Per rule 12-2-8, this is a foul.

While I know that YOU believe that the hit was clean (because a Squealer initiated the hit), let me ask you the following question. I know you won't be truthful with your answer, but WTH.  

The question is this: In the first game of next year, under EXACTLY the same circumstances, Burfict hits Bell in EXACTLY the same manner. 

Will you scream at your TV when the refs DON'T call a penalty on Burfict? If you said "NO, I still would think it is a legal hit", then I know you're still as full of crap the Squealers.

Everyone in the free world knows that was an illegal hit. (Including Blandino and the NFL)

But they will never admit it.

(01-20-2016, 06:00 PM)PV Bengal Wrote: As a typically ignorant Squealer fan, you're looking at the wrong thing.

The ref's blew the whistle because they thought Bernard was down by contact. He wasn't, of course, but it was a quick whistle.

What you are forgetting ... about the Shazier/Bernart hit ... is the following: Shazier had his helmet up, looked at Bernard, then lowered his helmet and hit him with the crown of the helmet. Per rule 12-2-8, this is a foul.

While I know that YOU believe that the hit was clean (because a Squealer initiated the hit), let me ask you the following question. I know you won't be truthful with your answer, but WTH.  

The question is this: In the first game of next year, under EXACTLY the same circumstances, Burfict hits Bell in EXACTLY the same manner. 

Will you scream at your TV when the refs DON'T call a penalty on Burfict? If you said "NO, I still would think it is a legal hit", then I know you're still as full of crap the Squealers.

As a typical Bengal fan you have no idea what you are talking about.  This is how completely ridiculous you are.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Good-luck-in-Denver?pid=157264#pid157264

Further more, you exemplify the idea that Bengal fans, and Cinci in general, are poorly educated as you were unable to identify the actual conversation I was having with the other Bengal fan who must have been educated elsewhere.  Maybe go back and actually spend some time reading the discussion and really delve into the comprehension part of reading.  As I have told my daughters over and over again.  It's great that you know all of those words in the sentence, and I am proud of you for that.  What I need you to do though is know what they all mean when they are put together.

(01-21-2016, 05:38 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: As a typical Bengal fan you have no idea what you are talking about.  This is how completely ridiculous you are.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Good-luck-in-Denver?pid=157264#pid157264

Further more, you exemplify the idea that Bengal fans, and Cinci in general, are poorly educated as you were unable to identify the actual conversation I was having with the other Bengal fan who must have been educated elsewhere.  Maybe go back and actually spend some time reading the discussion and really delve into the comprehension part of reading.  As I have told my daughters over and over again.  It's great that you know all of those words in the sentence, and I am prod of you for that.  What I need you to do though is know what they all mean when they are put together.

Ignore him, it's Vlad's brother. 

(01-26-2016, 02:30 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Ignore him, it's Vlad's brother. 

Ah.....I see.

I was simply upset with the inconsistencies most of the season. Nelson's hit on Owen Daniels in the Denver game was not flagged, but William's hit on Wheaton in the steelers game was. Eifert caught the ball, took steps and turned in the ravens game, but was ruled he was still a receiver in the process of making a catch and not a runner yet so no TD. Gio takes steps turns and gets hit but was ruled to have made a football move so he was considered a runner. In an effort to "protect" players, the NFL has simply made it almost impossible to determine what is what in any bang-bang close play.

As for the Gio hit/fumble recovery when steeler fans say that should have been a TD and the steelers should have been up by 7 more points. OK, but if I give you that, then I also think Bryant's TD should not have stood since by the time he pinned the ball to the back of his thigh, thus gaining control, he only took one step before somersaulting out of bounds. So those two plays kind of cancel each other out. In other words, I think the steelers got the correct amount of points for their total when it all is said and done. Their 18 point total is correct, they should not have had 25.

On the Gio hit the Bengals should have gotten yards and the ball and the Steelers TD catch wasn't a catch. They don't offset because they were both bad calls/non calls. So who knows what they should have scored.

The world may never know.

1..2..3..CRUNCH................3

Here's a handy dandy way to track the amount of time since this game:

https://days.to/16-january/2016


15 + days later and there are still active threads about it. Ten years later I wonder if this will be the Kimo story for the next decade?

It is always good for everybody to remember what actually happened. Not the twisted up version.

(01-12-2016, 12:13 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This is an example of the entire play in this case should have been reviewable. I suggest if they make the hit (determine if it is legal and the rest of the play all should be reviewable) also reviewable when they review anything. If they want to get it right, in this case, it would have been a flag on Shazier, possible ejection and Bengals ball inside the 10 yard line. The competition committee needs to get things like this reviewable and since they are reviewing plays, any illegal activity should also be fair game in my opinion so changes are needed.

Do you really think they were going to change their minds?  That's the thrust of the article.  This is why the same crew who officiated the previous game had no business being on the field.  I don't know if they consciously made up their minds in advance.  But it sure looked like they went in with an emotional predisposition.