Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Need a turnover!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Need a turnover!
That was the point at which I turned over to Sky and did not regret it.I do enjoy seeing who's managed to get a completely unnecessary freebie off the BBC. Couple of years ago it was Martin O'Neill, now I see Gareth Southgate is there for no apparent reason
I don't agree. The main thing in both cases was that the rulings on the field would have had to be overturned - that means the officials would have too see 'incontrovertible' evidence that contradicted the call.Delighted as I am that the Eagles have finally managed to win a Superbowl title - and in such thrilling style - if either Clement's or Ertz's TDs had been overturned on review - and both could easily have been - then I'm sure the Pats would have prevailed. I can't escape the suspicion that the NFL video reviewers gave the Eagles a huge benefit of the doubt on both those calls as a means of showing that they weren't prepared to give the Pats any decisions that could be seen as favouring them.
Fair comment, although you see close ones like those called back quite often, and I really thought they'd overturn the first one. I'd have been sick if they'd overruled either of them, but it wouldn't have surprised me if they had. Thankfully, sense prevailed!I don't agree. The main thing in both cases was that the rulings on the field would have had to be overturned - that means the officials would have too see 'incontrovertible' evidence that contradicted the call.
Clement's was borderline, and probably would have been upheld if called incomplete (out of bounds) on the field. It was tough to call though, even watching frame-by-frame slow-mo, and in no way incontrovertible.
Ertz's was clearly a touchdown. He took several steps in possession after the reception and dived to break the plane. I was very confident that one was going to stick.