Hmmm...multiple posts of the same dribble punky? Did you get tired of having to come up with new stuff? Probably something in the Wisconsin air. After Oct 5, the GB coaching staff is going to have the same problem. LOLOLOL!! Keep 'em coming punky G-boy!
Favre looked damn good against the Heathen Texans as did Chucky Cheese, but the play that put them up early and lasting was A.P.'s run, more of a fluke of a run, more of the D wasn't at all ready off tackle play than anything else. If The Purple Twurps want to win consistently they need more than that.... punkpaulos
My point is he came down with the ball in hands. I believe the rule states that if the defensive player is the cause of the the offensive player being knocked out of bounds then it is a catch. The rule for interference is if the ball is not catchable and catchable means both feet inbounds then there is no interference. Therefore if the ref felt that the guy could not come down with the ball in bounds it is a non catchable ball therefore interference should not have been called.
he hit him before the ball got there,thats why it was pass interference. it looked to me to be a catch able ball but would have been a difficult one to get both feet down.I think it was a good call. Or maybe it was a little favor for missing the obvious pass interference call against the vikings.
The last interference call in the chiefs game should not have been called. Here is why. Either it should have been ruled a touchdown or no catch. The chief player actually came down with the ball. So either it should have been ruled a touchdown because the player that hit him also pushed him out of bounds. So either the refs should have ruled it non catchable because the ball was to high and he would have never come down in bounds or the viking player caused the chief player to go out of bounds therefore it should have been a touchdown.
