This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
I thought it was bad a lot too. by IrishJosh24
Lots of missed holds, both ways, and the spotting seemed way off several times (seemed to benefit the 9ers, but I didn't do a study).
I was surprised a few things were not reviewed from the booth. The "catch" on the sideline has been ruled incomplete in many games (even on review after being called a catch on the field). But they didn't even pause it to review. I remember thinking "wait, no review?" a couple more times, but I don't remember the exact play. I think one was a spotting issue.
Edit to add: Rewatched some highlights, and it was the Pacheco run in OT that resulted in a 3rd and 1 before Mahomes's final run to the 13 or so. Sure seemed in real time, and then on review, that Pacheco had picked up the first down. But, again, no review.