forums

Duke johnson fumble and recovered

Advertisement
Very obvious what happened- the NFL's first female ref horribly botched the call (she is clearly looking for who has ball while Duke Johnson is holding it in his hands), and the NFL tried to protect her from criticism. If they had just said she made a mistake, some sexist fans say mean things, but it blows over. No big deal. By making up lies to protect her, the NFL is showing that she is incompetent and the league is keeping her around as a show pony.
 
TimeB0mb said:
Very obvious what happened- the NFL's first female ref horribly botched the call (she is clearly looking for who has ball while Duke Johnson is holding it in his hands), and the NFL tried to protect her from criticism. If they had just said she made a mistake, some sexist fans say mean things, but it blows over. No big deal. By making up lies to protect her, the NFL is showing that she is incompetent and the league is keeping her around as a show pony.
Click to expand...

New generationeveryone bytches or sues for dumb ****. Crazy foreel shes a chick and made a mistake thats all they gotta say. But women everywhere would sayits sexist for attention
 
It's nice the NFL experimented with having a female ref. Now fire her incompetent ***. :duke_stiff:
 
Canedog said:
It's nice the NFL experimented with having a female ref. Now fire her incompetent ***. :duke_stiff:
Click to expand...

Instead of deciding that a ref's ****** got in the way, you might ask yourself why the announcers are saying the redskins have the ball. There's no way this is for real. You're telling me that nobody but the shirtless wonder notice the browns had the ball? Or that the redskins didn't have possession but s browns player took the ball AFTER the call was made? I didn't see the game and that's a **** clip, but I find it hard to believe the NFL is trying to cover up something some clown watching the game in his underwear could see.
 
kryptonite said:
Canedog said:
It's nice the NFL experimented with having a female ref. Now fire her incompetent ***. :duke_stiff:
Click to expand...

Instead of deciding that a ref's ****** got in the way, you might ask yourself why the announcers are saying the redskins have the ball. There's no way this is for real. You're telling me that nobody but the shirtless wonder notice the browns had the ball? Or that the redskins didn't have possession but s browns player took the ball AFTER the call was made? I didn't see the game and that's a **** clip, but I find it hard to believe the NFL is trying to cover up something some clown watching the game in his underwear could see.
Click to expand...

Look at related videos, he's not the only one that saw it.
 
Advertisement
[]_[] swag;2648084 said:
kryptonite said:
Canedog said:
It's nice the NFL experimented with having a female ref. Now fire her incompetent ***. :duke_stiff:
Click to expand...

Instead of deciding that a ref's ****** got in the way, you might ask yourself why the announcers are saying the redskins have the ball. There's no way this is for real. You're telling me that nobody but the shirtless wonder notice the browns had the ball? Or that the redskins didn't have possession but s browns player took the ball AFTER the call was made? I didn't see the game and that's a **** clip, but I find it hard to believe the NFL is trying to cover up something some clown watching the game in his underwear could see.
Click to expand...

Look at related videos, he's not the only one that saw it.
Click to expand...

I get that, everybody's seen it now. My point was that the announcers don't seem to think the call is off. So they are, on the fly, pretending to think that this call is legit even though they know it's BS in order to protect a ref because she's a girl? Not impossible, just unlikely. My understanding is that the call was that the redskins had the ball (briefly) on the ground at the end of the play. Play blown dead, Duke pops up with the ball AFTER the play is over. Obviously it's strange how quickly the call was made, and maybe she screwed it up (it certainly looks that way), I just don't get what anyone has to gain by pretending that didn't happen if they know that it clearly did. The NFL can't be accused of giving her a raw deal if they reprimand her for a call that's so easy to see, so what do they gain?

Maybe this is one of those coverups that will leave us all wondering how they thought they'd get away with something so obvious, but I would think the league is smarter than that from a or perspective. But I've been wrong before.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Caneadian said:
it's 2016
Click to expand...

Super enlightened cool guy to the rescue
Click to expand...

ahahahaha. Oh man. Sometimes it can be dangerous posting on these things. Saying it's 2016 is the most ridiculous retarded thing anyone can ever say. Our Prime Minister has said it, I hear it on radio and tv all the frickin time. It's dumb, and obviously you know nothing about me so whyn would you assume you know what I meant by that post.
Unless your post was a joke too, then that's hilarious.
 
Advertisement
As a life long Clevelander and unfortunately being exposed to the sadomasochistic televised Browns games every Sunday, my entire life, this is nothing new to Us. These type of calls are made against the Browns 3 or 4 times a game, every game, every season. The NFL and its refs don't respect the franchise at all, and have never paid much attention to detail where our games and there outcomes are concerned.

Clevelanders are not surprised by this call, this is regular ish lol!
 
So nobody is giving props to the D for having an imaginary football... That was some funny **** tho...
 
Back
Top