Game Thread W13 - Cleveland V Arizona (1 Viewer)

[TxBuckeye]

So no explanation why the ref was under the hood for a lengthy amount of time? It was obviously just to be told by the booth upstairs that this was a non-reviewable play, right? Yep, that must've been it. Certainly none of the refs on the field knew that field goals were non-reviewable without one of them going under the hood to verify, right? Certainly makes sense to me, but of course I'm talking out of my ### so what would I know.

Are you sure you watched the game?

He didn't say he watched the game. I doubt he watched ANYTHING that had to do with the situation. But he doesn't let that slow him down any.

Hey clownie, are you trying to say that you actually watched the game and didn't see the ref go under the hood? You can debate all day about what went on under the hood, but if you're trying to say that he didn't go under there then you're out of your mind. It was on NATIONAL TELEVISION my friend, and I watched the game with plenty of other people who were all as perplexed as I was as to why a ref was going under the hood on a field goal call that's non-reviewable by NFL rules. Again, I couldn't give a damn about who won or what this call was as I have no vested interest in the Browns. Other than that, I'm not sure what to tell you but if you want to continue with your toolish posts then continue to do so.

I didn't say he didn't go under the hood. But you stated he went under it for two minutes. Then you said "oh ok, maybe it wasn't two minutes, but it was long enough that I know he watched the replay." You made a false statement about the time under the hood and when I asked where you got the info, you backtracked. So, as I stated, you were just talking out of your nether regions. If you are going to make up facts to try and support your (false) argument, don't be surprised when you get called out on it. If that is "toolish" to you, I guess you'd better get used to it. Because making false claims is going to get called out on this board.

 

[SayWhat?]

I didn't say he didn't go under the hood. But you stated he went under it for two minutes. Then you said "oh ok, maybe it wasn't two minutes, but it was long enough that I know he watched the replay." You made a false statement about the time under the hood and when I asked where you got the info, you backtracked. So, as I stated, you were just talking out of your nether regions. If you are going to make up facts to try and support your (false) argument, don't be surprised when you get called out on it. If that is "toolish" to you, I guess you'd better get used to it. Because making false claims is going to get called out on this board.

Yep, normally when I speak in general about the amount of time for something on a message board, I've timed the instance myself with a stop watch and supported my statement with links and video. The funny part is that I'd love to find the video so that you can prove my exagerations wrong since you're so adamant about this. But I do know this - that ref was under the hood a hell of a lot longer than to hear the booth tell him that it was a non-reviewable play. What happened under there we'll never know and can be debated ad nauseam.

I just searched for a good 15 minutes, and couldn't find the extended clip...but here's an interesting article.

Article

After a nearly five-minute discussion among three officials (referee Pete Morelli and the two standing underneath the goal post on the kick), Morelli reversed the ruling and called the kick good, which tied the score at 30 and sent the game into overtime.

Under league rules, field goals are non-reviewable.

"I did not go under the hood or use replay at all," Morelli said.

But WMAR-TV has a tape of Morelli going over to the replay booth and putting on a headset. Ravens assistant Vic Fangio had to be restrained because he was yelling to Morelli that the play couldn't be reviewed.

A few thoughts...why claim you didn't go under the hood when it was on live television that you did? Why not just say "Yes, I went under the hood but did so to simply verify whether or not the play was reviewable?" So if this entire ordeal was indeed 5 minutes (and it seemed like it at the time), it wouldn't shock me if my original statement of him being under the hood for 2 minutes was correct. It sure seemed like he was under there a helluva long time.

 

[wadegarrett]

I didn't say he didn't go under the hood. But you stated he went under it for two minutes. Then you said "oh ok, maybe it wasn't two minutes, but it was long enough that I know he watched the replay." You made a false statement about the time under the hood and when I asked where you got the info, you backtracked. So, as I stated, you were just talking out of your nether regions. If you are going to make up facts to try and support your (false) argument, don't be surprised when you get called out on it. If that is "toolish" to you, I guess you'd better get used to it. Because making false claims is going to get called out on this board.

Yep, normally when I speak in general about the amount of time for something on a message board, I've timed the instance myself with a stop watch and supported my statement with links and video. The funny part is that I'd love to find the video so that you can prove my exagerations wrong since you're so adamant about this. But I do know this - that ref was under the hood a hell of a lot longer than to hear the booth tell him that it was a non-reviewable play. What happened under there we'll never know and can be debated ad nauseam.

I just searched for a good 15 minutes, and couldn't find the extended clip...but here's an interesting article.

Article

After a nearly five-minute discussion among three officials (referee Pete Morelli and the two standing underneath the goal post on the kick), Morelli reversed the ruling and called the kick good, which tied the score at 30 and sent the game into overtime.

Under league rules, field goals are non-reviewable.

"I did not go under the hood or use replay at all," Morelli said.

But WMAR-TV has a tape of Morelli going over to the replay booth and putting on a headset. Ravens assistant Vic Fangio had to be restrained because he was yelling to Morelli that the play couldn't be reviewed.

A few thoughts...why claim you didn't go under the hood when it was on live television that you did? Why not just say "Yes, I went under the hood but did so to simply verify whether or not the play was reviewable?" So if this entire ordeal was indeed 5 minutes (and it seemed like it at the time), it wouldn't shock me if my original statement of him being under the hood for 2 minutes was correct. It sure seemed like he was under there a helluva long time.

"putting on a headset" and "going under the hood" are two different things

 

[TxBuckeye]

A few thoughts...why claim you didn't go under the hood when it was on live television that you did? Why not just say "Yes, I went under the hood but did so to simply verify whether or not the play was reviewable?" So if this entire ordeal was indeed 5 minutes (and it seemed like it at the time), it wouldn't shock me if my original statement of him being under the hood for 2 minutes was correct. It sure seemed like he was under there a helluva long time.

So be it. Like I said, this has been discussed ad naseum and it's obvious no one is going to change their mind here. No use continuing to hijack the thread. And like I said, I saw the Winslow replay and have no problem with the call, which I think is what started all this.