FU Chris Collinsworth

oldmandick

Back In Black!!
Donator
#1
Fuck you, Headquarters!

Take off your mic and leave the booth. You are not worthy.

You wanted SOOOO badly to have the review crew turn over the td pass to Ertz, you fucking Patriot homer. Take Belechick's oldmandick out of your ass and get a new job covering something you can't fuck up, like curling.

While you're at it get a Patriots tatt planted on that billboard forehead ...

 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Donator
#4
I don't even watch football and I was annoyed by the ball lapping. If the Eagles did something good he had to counter with how amazing the Patriots were. They couldn't have been more disappointed. I think Collinsworth was going to use a Patriots victory as a moment to propose to Brady.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
#5
Never liked him, only Joe Buck is worse.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
#7
I like Romo as a broadcaster, actually.
 

LineBackerU

There is a good chance I am blocking you.
Donator
#9
Collinsworth was born in Ohio, grew up and went to college in Florida, and played professional in Ohio. How does that make him a Patriots "homer?"
 
#10
Collinsworth was born in Ohio, grew up and went to college in Florida, and played professional in Ohio. How does that make him a Patriots "homer?"
Fucked some kids in Massachusetts.
 
#12
Just an FYI he has hated the patriots ever since he played professional football. Every game he broadcasts is anti-patriots. It's well known in New England. I was shocked to hear him advocate on behalf of a no touchdown call that would benefit the patriots which only served to highlight What a badly missed call it was.
For someone to make a claim that Chris Collinsworth is a patriots fan or a patriot homer would only show to me that they are not a football fan or have never watched many games or have never heard Chris Collinsworth call a Patriots game. It sounds like a claim a person watching their first football game with make.
If you watched the New England versus Seattle Super Bowl you would have seen his true colors as he was against the patriots and cheering the Seahawks on nearly every play. There were even articles about it same way to Philly fans are crying now that he was bias.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/can-we-talk-about-chris-collinsworth-for-a-moment.7898/
 
#13
Just an FYI he has hated the patriots ever since he played professional football. Every game he broadcasts is anti-patriots. It's well known in New England. I was shocked to hear him advocate on behalf of a no touchdown call that would benefit the patriots which only served to highlight What a badly missed call it was.
For someone to make a claim that Chris Collinsworth is a patriots fan or a patriot homer would only show to me that they are not a football fan or have never watched many games or have never heard Chris Collinsworth call a Patriots game. It sounds like a claim a person watching their first football game with make.
If you watched the New England versus Seattle Super Bowl you would have seen his true colors as he was against the patriots and cheering the Seahawks on nearly every play. There were even articles about it same way to Philly fans are crying now that he was bias.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/can-we-talk-about-chris-collinsworth-for-a-moment.7898/
#Itwastheirturn
 

oldmandick

Back In Black!!
Donator
#14
Collinsworth was born in Ohio, grew up and went to college in Florida, and played professional in Ohio. How does that make him a Patriots "homer?"
Forgive me for such careless word choice.

Collinsworth is a clueless fuckwad who was certain that Ertz' td catch would be overturned because the catch wasn't continued to the ground, or however that shitty rule reads. Now maybe you think he doesn't suck Patriot dick and has a real woody for Brady, but this rancid piece of shit who used to be a decent baller doesn't know a football move when he sees it with his googly eyes.

So let's keep this simple. CC is a homer because I say so, and fuck Penn State.
 

oldmandick

Back In Black!!
Donator
#15
I was shocked to hear him advocate on behalf of a no touchdown call that would benefit the patriots which only served to highlight What a badly missed call it was.
Please shock yourself, just in case you'd like to see it for the first time. I'm sure there are some slo-mo replays out there if you still want to pick nits.

 
#16
You can view it however you'd like, but if you actually watch the video, in the NFL it takes 2 feet down to complete a standing catch. After his second foot hits and before his 3rd footfall of the attempted reception he is contacted by the defender and falls/dives for the endzone. He cannot possible be found to be making a 'football move' when he made no move after the first 2 foot falls before the tackle was initiated. A football move is not part of a tackle. If he made a 3rd or 4th step and then was tackled, that would be a football move, but prior to step 3 after the ball is grabbed he is already headed for the ground with the assistance of a defender. A tackle. When a receiver goes to the ground...yadda yadda...ball popped out off the ground.
 

oldmandick

Back In Black!!
Donator
#17
You can view it however you'd like
So can you. So can the review crew ... from many angles and in super slow mo.

After the catch Ertz became a runner. Please continue to harp on the NFL's flawed 'to the ground' hog wash, especially since that was not what happened. Watch and learn.

 
#18
So can you. So can the review crew ... from many angles and in super slow mo.

After the catch Ertz became a runner. Please continue to harp on the NFL's flawed 'to the ground' hog wash, especially since that was not what happened. Watch and learn.

yeah, it's still incorrect. The NFL made up their mind before the game that they didn't want any overturned calls due to this rule so the ruled differently that they had for every instance of similar plays for the entire season. I really don't care about the Ertz catch. That didn't bother me. The real blown call was the clement TD and of course on 4th and 5 and Gronk was pushed out of bound before the ball even arrived...no call, no replay on nbc...and of course Hogan being blown out to the ground on the Hail Mary...but keep pointing out the excellent job the officials did. It was a horribly officiated game...so back to Collinsworth and his love for the Pats....Should make for an interesting Inside the NFL.
 

oldmandick

Back In Black!!
Donator
#19
Three full steps ... and Collinsworth is a clueless homer. I'd pull up an audio file if I thought it would make blood come out of your ears, just so you could share the experience of actually listening to that waste of air.

"Ertz was upright when he caught the ball. He remained upright for three whole steps. He controlled the football the entire time. Then he willingly dove, entirely of his own volition, for the express purpose of reaching the ball across the goal line."

http://www.nbcsports.com/philadelph...rth-invents-catch-rule-controversy-super-bowl
 
#20
I'll put it in simple slides for you.

1. Ball is in the air not caught yet.



2. Ball hits hands, 1st foot is planted.



3. 2nd foot lands and the tackle has already started.




4. Finally has a 3rd foot hit the ground as the tackle is already happening and he's falling. So between the 2nd foot hitting, and the 3rd foot hitting, all while the tackle was already started you contend he made a "football move" somewhere in between the frames of the footage? I guess the camera missed it.




5. He's now being tackled/tripped and diving to the ground, in completion of a catch. Because the tackle contact was initiated, as the video evidence and still frame shows, during the planting of the 2nd foot used to establish the catch, the entire process is considered a tackle under the present rules. It was a fuck up by the refs. You may hate the rule, but as enforced the entire year, that's how this went.

He hit the ground and the ground popped the ball out. Incomplete under every interpretation of this rule for the entire year, until the A+ superbowl crew gets to do whatever the hell the fell like because the league doesn't want a dallas playoffs catch issue.

Still searching for those three full steps and then a football move
 

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
#21
I'll put it in simple slides for you.

1. Ball is in the air not caught yet.



2. Ball hits hands, 1st foot is planted.



3. 2nd foot lands and the tackle has already started.




4. Finally has a 3rd foot hit the ground as the tackle is already happening and he's falling. So between the 2nd foot hitting, and the 3rd foot hitting, all while the tackle was already started you contend he made a "football move" somewhere in between the frames of the footage? I guess the camera missed it.




5. He's now being tackled/tripped and diving to the ground, in completion of a catch. Because the tackle contact was initiated, as the video evidence and still frame shows, during the planting of the 2nd foot used to establish the catch, the entire process is considered a tackle under the present rules. It was a fuck up by the refs. You may hate the rule, but as enforced the entire year, that's how this went.

He hit the ground and the ground popped the ball out. Incomplete under every interpretation of this rule for the entire year, until the A+ superbowl crew gets to do whatever the hell the fell like because the league doesn't want a dallas playoffs catch issue.

Still searching for those three full steps and then a football move
Your 4 year old's handwriting has really improved.
 
#23
Listening to talk of "football move" during a game is about the worst thing about watching football. It's particularly infuriating when CBS/FOX brings in their retired refs to give their two cents.

Oh and Fuck Colinsworth, used to be one of the better ones now he's insufferable.
 

oldmandick

Back In Black!!
Donator
#24
I'll put it in simple slides for you.

1. Ball is in the air not caught yet.



2. Ball hits hands, 1st foot is planted.



3. 2nd foot lands and the tackle has already started.




4. Finally has a 3rd foot hit the ground as the tackle is already happening and he's falling. So between the 2nd foot hitting, and the 3rd foot hitting, all while the tackle was already started you contend he made a "football move" somewhere in between the frames of the footage? I guess the camera missed it.




5. He's now being tackled/tripped and diving to the ground, in completion of a catch. Because the tackle contact was initiated, as the video evidence and still frame shows, during the planting of the 2nd foot used to establish the catch, the entire process is considered a tackle under the present rules. It was a fuck up by the refs. You may hate the rule, but as enforced the entire year, that's how this went.

He hit the ground and the ground popped the ball out. Incomplete under every interpretation of this rule for the entire year, until the A+ superbowl crew gets to do whatever the hell the fell like because the league doesn't want a dallas playoffs catch issue.

Still searching for those three full steps and then a football move
Nice work, but your case is about as compelling as your marker coolness. Perhaps you should market this analysis technique for disputed calls. I know the NFL brass would love to speed up the game. I'm all for giving less time to Collinsworth, so yeah ... go for it.

All that being said, "Not yet caught" is the point at which your analysis falls apart. The fucking ball is in Ertz' meaty hands how long after the image was captured?.
 
Last edited:
#25
Nice work, but your case is about as compelling as your marker coolness. Perhaps you should market this analysis technique for disputed calls. I know the NFL brass would love to speed up the game. I'm all for giving less time to Collinsworth, so yeah ... go for it.

All that being said, "Not yet caught" is the point at which your analysis falls apart. The fucking ball is in Ertz' meaty hands how long after the image was captured?.
Um...I don't know if you're just trolling or don't understand how a reception works. But the first image with the "Not yet caught" is to show you the foot position before the ball gets to his hands. The image of the first foot step with the ball is all that should be relevant as if he were jumping in the air to catch the ball the catch wouldn't be legit until 2 feet go down
this is the first foot down with the ball in his hands. His left foot is on the ground prior to the ball reaching his hands and as he is off the ground with both feet until the right foot plants and he grabs the ball. It's not complicated. It's plain to see that he made 3 footfalls, and only 1 footfall with no contact with the defender. That means it was a tackles and a receiver going to the ground. Criticize the images all you want but it won't change the facts of the images, that the NFL erred in it's interpretation of the play. Again I intentionally used crappy graphics because I knew the weak argument that it was football move would be abandoned to criticize the graphics.
 
Top