I can only imagine how much screaming and anger there would be if SatelliteGuys was around at the time of that Patriots/Raiders game in 1976.
The one you need a new eye glass prescription to watch apparently. Brady's head doesnt even move!
Were you on the O.J. jury by any chance?
I dont want to hear about anything with Troy or and of these long haired players. For years he has had an unfair advantage of that long hair which prevents anyone grabbing his jersy back there because you end up with a handfull of hair and a personal foul.
Thank god they are changing that bogus rule.
Woodson's head slap
Cold, Hard Football Facts for September 6, 2005
The infamous "tuck" play in the Oakland-New England 2001 divisional playoffs is probably one of the most talked-about plays in NFL history. It's certainly one of the most controversial. The "tuck" play is front and center in many conversations again, as Oakland and New England prepare to kick off the 2005 season Thursday night.
We've spent more than our share of time talking about the play, particularly in our "pundit"-splattering opus, "A slow, hanging curveball," in which we highlight the letter and law of the actual rule called into question on the play. In the discussion we brought up something utterly overlooked by "pundits" and fans following the controversy: the fact that blitzing Oakland defensive back Charles Woodson hit New England QB Tom Brady with a vicious and illegal head slap.
We've seen the non-called penalty with our own eyes as we've watched replays of the game. Well, we recently came across this video evidence for all to see and we have posted it here. Woodson's open hand clearly hits Brady's head, where the right side of the facemask is screwed to the helmet, forcing his helmet to snap to his left and, in all likelihood, forcing Brady to lose control of the ball.
Controversy ensued as many fans claimed it was a fumble, recovered by Oakland, which would have sealed the deal for the Raiders. Instead, it was called an incomplete forward pass and New England was given another shot to go on and tie the game and, ultimately, win in overtime.
But as this video evidence shows, it's a controversy that never should have been. Woodson should have been whistled for a 15-yard penalty, which would have given New England an automatic first down. More importantly, the penalty would have slammed the door on any controversy over the "tuck" rule.
Just for the record, I don't see Brady's head snap back either. In fact, Woodson's hand makes contact with Brady's helmet and is off so fast that you almost miss it, and this is in slo-mo. Sounds like someone is just looking for something.
NO GOAL!
Wait, let me correct that for you:I guess we now know why he wasn't guilty...
I guess we now know why he was found not guilty...
...Woodson clearly slapped Brady in the head (or are we going to dispute that too) and that ALONE is a penalty.
What is this, the JFK Assassination trial? "Back, and to the left" "Back, and to the left" "His neck snaps." "He gets tapped on the head" "That was a face-mask penalty" "He barely touches him." I mean GOD.. obviously this thread is about bad calls in sports history, but this topic has overtaken the thread like the Bret Favre story has taken over NFL news.LMAO.....so that video is just a mirage then right? LOL, from the front angle it only 'looks' like he hit his helmet, BUT the side angle it "clearly" shows Woodson's hand hit Brady's shoulder. OMG, that's good stuff really. You do realize that the front view CLEARLY shows Woodson's hand was no where near Brady's shoulder, don't you?
I grant you that (I think I heard it mentioned once postgame). It doesn't change the fact (video evidence) that he was clearly hit in the head.
What is this, the JFK Assassination trial? "Back, and to the left" "Back, and to the left" "His neck snaps." "He gets tapped on the head" "That was a face-mask penalty" "He barely touches him." I mean GOD.. obviously this thread is about bad calls in sports history, but this topic has overtaken the thread like the Bret Favre story has taken over NFL news.
Now that's some sour grapes!It was in the 1976 NBA Eastern Conference Finals between the Celtics and Cavaliers. I believe it was game 5 but it may have been game 2, but the game was in Boston. The regular officials were on strike so the NBA instead of bringing in college officials instead brought in officials from an officials school in New England run by Red Auerbach. The Cavs had lost there starting center Jim Chones to injury but they had future Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond. The 6'11" Thurmond was matched up against the Celtics' 6'9" Dave Cowens (one of the Celtics all-time cry baby players of which the list is extensive). The Cavs didn't have much in way of backups for Thurmond i.e., Luke Witte. I believe it happen late in the third quarter with Thurmond already saddled with 4 fouls. Cowens took a jump shot from perhaps 15 feet out as Cowens wasn't a conventional center for his day. Thurmond was a good 5 feet away from Cowens and went straight up and clearly blocked his shot. He couldn't have touched Cowens from where he was but one of Red's crony officials called Thurmond for his fifth foul sending him to the bench. The Cavs ended up losing the game by 5 points and the series 4-2.
I'm a very objective poster (I don't look at everything through my teams colored glasses), so I resent the fact that you say I'm "looking for something". IMO, his head went back, but you know what......it doesn't matter if it did or not. Why? Woodson clearly slapped Brady in the head (or are we going to dispute that too) and that ALONE is a penalty.
The worst that I have seen in person was Jabar Gaffney's touchdown "catch" in Neyland vs Tennessee in 2000. Apparently the ball just has to touch your jersey to be called a touchdown. The tables were turned, however, in 2004 when a one-sided personal foul call and a clock that didn't start helped Tennessee win by a field goal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?