If that wasn't pass interferance in the end zone, I don't know what is!
Printable View
If that wasn't pass interferance in the end zone, I don't know what is!
Wish I could see it.
TB, I am just guessing, but that ball looked to be 'uncatchable'. Even for Henry, that ball landed a few yards out of the back of the endzone.
I guess I don't agree. If the guy wasn't all over him, I think he would have had it.
Is there a video of it
How 'bout those Bengals posting six consecutive shut-out quarters? Nice.
Well, what the hell is PI these days anyway? No one seems to know anymore, least of all the refs. Every game there's at least 2 or 3 calls or non-calls that confound everyone.
whay wasn't that fumble return a touchdown?
I was wondering the same thing. I was on the phone when the play happened. What I saw from the replay was that the ball was fumbled, and Kilmer picked it up and ran it in for the TD. :confused:
Well that's a crappy rule!!
But thank you for the explanation.
If Baltimore fielded the punt cleanly, than the Bengals could have returned it for a TD.
The only reason the Bengals couldn't return the fumble was because the Baltimore reciever never fully had possesion of the punt.
I think the bigger foul was the no call on Mason with a minute left. Granted, we all have come to expect Toasty James to get beat, but he was just cleared out there. Maybe I just wanted the shutout too much?
Good game, but Oakland reaks of a trap.
I heard the rule, but is there any explanation why? I always thought that, once the receiving team touched it, it was a live ball. Oh well. You learn something new every day.