The explanation from the referee after the game (according to espn.com) was that they were calling no pass interference on the play, because the receiver supposedly interfered with was ineligible. Hence no offsetting penalties, just a penalty on the offense. Later examination showed that the receiver interfered with actually was eligible, so it should have been pass interference, hence offsetting penalties, hence another play run with no time on the clock...
It's criminal. They should allow do-overs, or something. I mean, I wasn't particularly for either team, but the Giants have to be just sick about it.
C.i, they didn't call the pass interference at all, thus, you can't challenge the lack of a call. It is unchallengable.
If you get down to it, there isn't much that is challengeable. You can challenge the spot of the ball, or if a receiver was in bounds, or a catch or a fumble, but that's about it.
Sozobe, it's not criminal. If the Giants long snapper hadn't bounced it off the turf on the way to the holder, none of this would have ever came about. Either they make it or miss it. As it was, the Giants put themselves in a position to lose the game after basically running away with it for the first three quarters. I don't see how that is the 49ers problem.
cjh, It was my understand, maybe wrongly, that there was an offsetting penalty: the Giants had a wrong man upfield, and the 9ers had the pass interference. c.i.
This is all very interesting - how many wickets did they take???
Wicket cricket micket schmicket. We're talking bagels (as in the points the Giants put on the board when it mattered) here.
c.i. - It sure as hell seemed like they were calling offsetting penalties (and they should have) but the referee's explanation after the game was that it was ineligible receiver downfield and that's it.
I probably heard one of the commentators, and not the referee call. ;( c.i.
I didn't know until last night's apology. Man did they muff it. To their credit, though, the NFL admitted it when their ref's screwed up a playoff game -- unlike anything you'd ever see in the NBA or Major League Baseball. Or even cricket, which, for all it's apparent decorum, is really just a bestial match of brute strength and repressed romanesque homosexuality in a pastoral setting.
patiodog, You are a brave soul to express such on A2K.
c.i.
Well, I figure it must be the case. It's something I've learned from Seattle area dog runs. Woodland Park has a dog run and is also a cruising spot for closety middle-aged types and young in-need-of-money males. NorthAcres has a dog run, and is also a cruising spot for the same people (including a mailman who is a regular visitor). I've seen no evidence of this type of behavior at Magnusson Park, but the place is so large and scrubby that it must be going on there, too.
Now, it took me a while to figure out what was going on at Marymoor, over in Bellevue. I couldn't see any cruisers in evidence. Eventually I noticed, however, that Marymoor seems to be the one place around here where cricket is played on a regular basis. And where do they play it? Why, right next to the men's restroom, of course! It all makes perfect sense. And they play lots of cricket in Australia. What's slang for Australia? Oz! And who was in Oz? Why, Dorothy, and her friends...
Ah, the rocco filigree of your argument, PD, a gem, truly a gem . . .
The reasoning is airtight, I think. Absolutely unassailable.
Naw, Boss, i'm of Irish descent . . . can't speak for PD . . .
Hmmm. Scots. English. German. Swiss-German. Czech. Swedish. Cherokee. Among others, I am sure. No Philistines. I've an aunt Phyllis, but she's not a blood relation.
Well, margo - at least they are speaking English again....
OK, here's what I found out about the holder spiking the ball. That would have been called intentional grounding and by rule, 10 seconds would be run off the clock, ending the game. Never knew that before.
That's weird. Never heard of a loss-of-time penatly before...
Ooooops - spoke too soon!
[/b]
