Links:
The National Fixed League? [The Money Line Journal]
REFEREE ADMITS ERROR AT END OF CHARGERS-STEELERS GAME [PFT]
Bookies Win Millions, Bettors Lose on Bad Steelers Call [Pregame.com]
Steelers 11, Chargers 10: Steelers Fans Are Happy, Gamblers Are Pissed [NFL FanHouse]
FANS THINK FIX WAS IN FOR CHARGERS-STEELERS [PFT]
"We should have let the play go through in the end, yes," [referee Scott] Green said. "It was misinterpreted that instead of killing the play, we should have let the play go through."So you nullified a touchdown, but you didn't even know which lateral you were saying was illegal? What? That makes absolutely no sense. This really shouldn't be that complicated.
Green said the confusion occurred because there was a misunderstanding about whether Tomlinson's pass or Chambers' pass was in question.
"The first pass was the one that was illegal, but it only kills the play if it hits the ground," Green said. "That was incorrect to have killed it at that point. The ruling should have let the play go on."
4 comments:
So are they essentially saying that the play wouldn't have resulted in a touchdown, but that they shouldn't have ruled it dead?
I don't get that explanation considering the first lateral looks legit anyway.
To me, the first lateral definitely looked illegal, but I think Pittsburgh would have the option to decline that penalty, therefore the play shouldn't have been called dead, which it would have been had the ball hit the ground. That's how I'm interpreting it.
"To me, the first lateral definitely looked illegal, but I think Pittsburgh would have the option to decline that penalty, therefore the play shouldn't have been called dead, which it would have been had the ball hit the ground. That's how I'm interpreting it."
FWIW, This is the correct interpretation.
Unrelated, but PUJOLS!!! WOOOOOOOO
Post a Comment