Thread: Dirty Hit=Ross Recovery

These are similair arguements. Some fans believe the hit was clean and others believe it was nasty dirty. Some believe Ross recovered the fumble and some believe he didnt. Packer fans that feel drasticly about the situation: You now know what its like to argue about something you thought was so wrong. I seen Los get pretty defensive when someone said it wasn't a dirty hit, i dont know about you guys but thats the way i felt when arguing the fumble.

These are different situations, a man could be seriously hurt but i'm just trying explain the passion for an arguement you feel your right about. :argue:

"vikingstw" wrote:

These are similair arguements. Some fans believe the hit was clean and others believe it was nasty dirty. Some believe Ross recovered the fumble and some believe he didnt. Packer fans that feel drasticly about the situation: You now know what its like to argue about something you thought was so wrong. I seen Los get pretty defensive when someone said it wasn't a dirty hit, i dont know about you guys but thats the way i felt when arguing the fumble.

These are different situations, a man could be seriously hurt but i'm just trying explain the passion for an arguement you feel your right about. :argue:

Are you talking about the fumble in the Minne-GB game?

Yes Sir! I dont think i let that arguement go for at least two weeks, i was still fighting and scratching to change the mind of other people.

Oh, I argued it also, though I tried to see both sides of it. It was a judgement call, and that's hard declare a clear winner. The refs made a juegement on the field with the belief that replay would decisively correct it for them, and replay didn't show anything conclusive other than Ross had it for a moment, was swallowed up by the pile, and Steele came out with it. If they had called Ross with the ball on the field, replay would have been inconclusive that way, too.

I'm glad it worked out the way it did, but no one had to go to the hospital over it.

ross had the ball that pisses me off i rather not think of it

"LosAngelis" wrote:

Oh, I argued it also, though I tried to see both sides of it. It was a judgement call, and that's hard declare a clear winner. The refs made a juegement on the field with the belief that replay would decisively correct it for them, and replay didn't show anything conclusive other than Ross had it for a moment, was swallowed up by the pile, and Steele came out with it. If they had called Ross with the ball on the field, replay would have been inconclusive that way, too.

I'm glad it worked out the way it did, but no one had to go to the hospital over it.

Again, I must disagree with you. Video CLEARLY showed Ross in POSSESSION of the ball - that's all it NEEDED to show. The thing is, it wasn't reviewed. Had it been, it would have been reversed as clear and convincing evidence exists.

However, since it wasn't reviewed - and the Vikes got screwed by a bad call - I hope that they can use that as motivation to torture Green Bay further by completely ruining their drive back home Christmas Eve by beating them worse than Philly did.

Although, I'd take a simple win too...

Caine

Can we just forget about it? It's over.

I think we have for the most part.

if were talking about the hit today in the GB game then i feel it was dirty and probably intentional at the time but that is the nature of the beast, i dont see how that connects to the fumble, maybe its just me????