For whatever it's worth now..............

[Muck]

I know. But it was there for the taking.

 

[Muck]

Originally posted by XNOUGHT
Boy that 12-0 loss burns you guys.

The 12-0 loss......

Not 3-2, the 12-0 loss.And we missed ANOTHER kick too :eek:

It was from 54 yards. The odds were very slim and none that you'd get it.

Yeah, the loss sucked. I wish we had some semblance of an offense. Happy??

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by Samphin
They still make calculators? I thought everything was programmed into cell phones nowadays...

What's a "cell phone" ??
The calculator i use is one of those things with a whole bunch of beads on a bunch of different rods and you slide'em back 'n forth 'n such!!! :D

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by Ross
You have way too much time on your hands...

Ain't much else to do while laid up with this bad achilles!!

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by Jeep
Can you do the same thing for the field goal missed by Mare in the September game... the imfamous dirt infield kick??


I really want to know if that kick was "no good"

Thanks in advance

That one wasn't even close. Remembe Lucy and Charlie Brown??

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by DolFan31
What Im more concerned about is the fact that if Mare had kicked the same FG,and the outcome was the same(where the ball wound up) you and I and every other Dolphan knows it most likely wouldve been called "No Good".

Unfortunately, TiVo doesn't have a "remedy for that. We all know that you are more than likely right tho.

 

[inFINSible]

I've said this before but, just in case someone missed out on my wisdom....I want to know how the league, or refs, or whatever can justify "awarding" a FG if the ball sails directly over the goal posts???

If the ball had been lower there is no question that it would have hit the post. The probability of the ball going through the goal after the doink, would be 50/50, As in, might, might not. But, by missing the goal entirely the odds became 100% that the ball was good.

Kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

That's the point of my protest. The rule needs to be changed to read... If the ball sails OVER the side posts, then it must be FULLY inside the uprights...... . Anything lower should still follow the current rules.

JMO.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by inFINSible
I've said this before but, just in case someone missed out on my wisdom....I want to know how the league, or refs, or whatever can justify "awarding" a FG if the ball sails directly over the goal posts???

If the ball had been lower there is no question that it would have hit the post. The probability of the ball going through the goal after the doink, would be 50/50, As in, might, might not. But, by missing the goal entirely the odds became 100% that the ball was good.

Kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

That's the point of my protest. The rule needs to be changed to read... If the ball sails OVER the side posts, then it must be FULLY inside the uprights...... . Anything lower should still follow the current rules.

JMO.

I know, that's where the rule is contradictory. it says that anything on the inside of the outer edge of the upright is in the goal [area]. With that being the case, any ball hitting any part of it, except the cureved part going to the ground, should be good. So the rule should be changed in that if the ball hits the post, whether or not it goes thru or not, should be one way or the other, all good or all bad. Then when they have one similar to this one, then the call would be easier to make.
anyway, as i "figured" earlier, near as i could tell, the ball had already passed over the crossbar before it "appeared" to be directly over the upright, tho.