(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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.