Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Bill Brasky said:

of course you would  

I've got no problem with that call when you need half a yard, in that part of the field.  If you can't get that, you got bigger problems.

  • Like 1
Posted

He should have taken off earlier almost right after the snap with a hole open to his right since they were blitzing.

 

Waited too long and now he’s probably done for the day.

 

Posted
13 minutes ago, NowThis said:

so HOF Witten was replaced by Swaim? 

No. 

HOF Witten was replaced by over the hill Witten. 

Over the hill Witten was replaced by "can barely move then fall over" Witten. 

"Can barely move then fall over" Witten was replaced by Swaim. 

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Augustus said:

How the FUCK do  you miss that personal foul?

To be fair, Dak was diving for a first down. They don't protect QBs that dive forward.

Posted
1 minute ago, Junior Miller said:

Because he was a runner and the guy made the form tackle with his shoulder. Good no call. 

The defender was standing out of bounds when he made the hit, and the hit was out of bounds.

Posted
Just now, Augustus said:

The defender was standing out of bounds when he made the hit, and the hit was out of bounds.

Well you can be out of bounds and make tackles, just not be the first to touch a ball without re-establish yourself. Also, the hit was in bounds, going out of bounds. Also, Dak initiated 80% of that contact by diving forward. I love me some 'boys, and hate me some 'skins, but that was a good no-call.

Posted
Just now, Augustus said:

The defender was standing out of bounds when he made the hit, and the hit was out of bounds.

The runner was diving for a first down and the defender was standing on the line with a foot out and a foot in making the tackle to prevent the first down. 

I want the Cowboys to win and Dak to be ok but that was just football and completely legit play by the defender. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Augustus said:

The defender was standing out of bounds when he made the hit, and the hit was out of bounds.

the hit was not out of bounds.. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

No. 

HOF Witten was replaced by over the hill Witten. 

Over the hill Witten was replaced by "can barely move then fall over" Witten. 

"Can barely move then fall over" Witten was replaced by Swaim. 

his last 4 years were not bad, not elite, but still pretty good. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Augustus said:

The defender was standing out of bounds when he made the hit, and the hit was out of bounds.

defender's left foot was in bounds, so was Dak's head

Posted

If it was Tom Brady that defender would be banned for life. By rule that’s a foul. Disagree with the rule if you like but hitting him in the helmet whether intentionally or not is a foul by rule.

Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

If it was Tom Brady that defender would be banned for life. By rule that’s a foul. Disagree with the rule if you like but hitting him in the helmet whether intentionally or not is a foul by rule.

Not when the player has the ball and becomes a runner going at the defense. If that was the case the RB would get a call on almost every run between the tackles. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If it was Tom Brady that defender would be banned for life. By rule that’s a foul. Disagree with the rule if you like but hitting him in the helmet whether intentionally or not is a foul by rule.

running backs get hit head to head all the fucking time, it's wasn't a penalty, notice how the announcers said nothing about it?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...