The Ed Cunningham Thread

[dutch91701]

That hit should have been flagged. Sorry, that's a 15 yarder. We got lucky.

 

 

What kind of sun dress do you wear when you watch the game?

^This

[dutch91701]

Here is the hit on Martinez. Clearly, his head is in front of the runner.

 

Nice flash from your camera on the TV. Not exactly an official review. This clearly isn't the moment of impact, so why don't you let those of us with access to civilized technology and, most importantly, knowledge of football, make the decision.

[TigerNuts]

Here is the hit on Martinez. Clearly, his head is in front of the runner.

 

Nice flash from your camera on the TV. Not exactly an official review. This clearly isn't the moment of impact, so why don't you let those of us with access to civilized technology and, most importantly, knowledge of football, make the decision.

 

Post your picture then, genius. His shoulder pad is literally touching Martinez's leg. What more do you want?

[huKSer]

I'm a waitin' for this:

 

"Upon further review, Dan Beebe says the call should go against the Huskers"

[MCAT800]

Why was that play not reviewed on the Gabbert sack? It was clearly a fumble!

 

I'm still in shock over that. Blatant fumble. Cunningham, unbelievably, starts in again with his "this is what we're trying to remove from the game" horsesh&*, meanwhile, we score a defensive touchdown. A flat out defensive touchdown. No review. (Of course we could only have gained possesion through a review and not the 6 points that we had, in fact, earned, but possession nonetheless.)

 

And no mention of fumble by either broadcaster.

 

Un....real. Oh well. They still couldn't take it from us, could they? GBR!!!!!!

 

The broadcasters mentioned that it looked like fumble and it was not reviewed b/c the play was blown dead on the field. You cannot call a fumble on a review just like you can't call a face-mask.

 

How is a play blown dead before or during a QB sack????

 

It was blown dead (maybe "dead" is not the right word, it was whistled that the play was over) after the sack. They didn't call the fumble on the field so you can't call it on review.

 

Yea after the sack the play is over, but the fumble came while he was still going down.

There is no explanation that is valid to uphold your opinion or the Texass football conference referees or both officials. That was a fumble. But it doesn't really matter now

[TigerNuts]

Why was that play not reviewed on the Gabbert sack? It was clearly a fumble!

 

I'm still in shock over that. Blatant fumble. Cunningham, unbelievably, starts in again with his "this is what we're trying to remove from the game" horsesh&*, meanwhile, we score a defensive touchdown. A flat out defensive touchdown. No review. (Of course we could only have gained possesion through a review and not the 6 points that we had, in fact, earned, but possession nonetheless.)

 

And no mention of fumble by either broadcaster.

 

Un....real. Oh well. They still couldn't take it from us, could they? GBR!!!!!!

 

The broadcasters mentioned that it looked like fumble and it was not reviewed b/c the play was blown dead on the field. You cannot call a fumble on a review just like you can't call a face-mask.

 

How is a play blown dead before or during a QB sack????

 

It was blown dead (maybe "dead" is not the right word, it was whistled that the play was over) after the sack. They didn't call the fumble on the field so you can't call it on review.

 

Yea after the sack the play is over, but the fumble came while he was still going down.

There is no explanation that is valid to uphold your opinion or the Texass football conference referees or both officials. That was a fumble. But it doesn't really matter now

 

The point is that it was NOT CALLED ON THE FIELD. Yes, it was technically a fumble, but the officials didn't call it, therefore it can not be called on review.

[walksalone]

Why was that play not reviewed on the Gabbert sack? It was clearly a fumble!

 

I'm still in shock over that. Blatant fumble. Cunningham, unbelievably, starts in again with his "this is what we're trying to remove from the game" horsesh&*, meanwhile, we score a defensive touchdown. A flat out defensive touchdown. No review. (Of course we could only have gained possesion through a review and not the 6 points that we had, in fact, earned, but possession nonetheless.)

 

And no mention of fumble by either broadcaster.

 

Un....real. Oh well. They still couldn't take it from us, could they? GBR!!!!!!

 

The broadcasters mentioned that it looked like fumble and it was not reviewed b/c the play was blown dead on the field. You cannot call a fumble on a review just like you can't call a face-mask.

 

How is a play blown dead before or during a QB sack????

 

It was blown dead (maybe "dead" is not the right word, it was whistled that the play was over) after the sack. They didn't call the fumble on the field so you can't call it on review.

 

Yea after the sack the play is over, but the fumble came while he was still going down.

There is no explanation that is valid to uphold your opinion or the Texass football conference referees or both officials. That was a fumble. But it doesn't really matter now

 

The point is that it was NOT CALLED ON THE FIELD. Yes, it was technically a fumble, but the officials didn't call it, therefore it can not be called on review.

 

don't go away mad, just go away

[TigerNuts]

Why was that play not reviewed on the Gabbert sack? It was clearly a fumble!

 

I'm still in shock over that. Blatant fumble. Cunningham, unbelievably, starts in again with his "this is what we're trying to remove from the game" horsesh&*, meanwhile, we score a defensive touchdown. A flat out defensive touchdown. No review. (Of course we could only have gained possesion through a review and not the 6 points that we had, in fact, earned, but possession nonetheless.)

 

And no mention of fumble by either broadcaster.

 

Un....real. Oh well. They still couldn't take it from us, could they? GBR!!!!!!

 

The broadcasters mentioned that it looked like fumble and it was not reviewed b/c the play was blown dead on the field. You cannot call a fumble on a review just like you can't call a face-mask.

 

How is a play blown dead before or during a QB sack????

 

It was blown dead (maybe "dead" is not the right word, it was whistled that the play was over) after the sack. They didn't call the fumble on the field so you can't call it on review.

 

Yea after the sack the play is over, but the fumble came while he was still going down.

There is no explanation that is valid to uphold your opinion or the Texass football conference referees or both officials. That was a fumble. But it doesn't really matter now

 

The point is that it was NOT CALLED ON THE FIELD. Yes, it was technically a fumble, but the officials didn't call it, therefore it can not be called on review.

 

don't go away mad, just go away

 

So, you have nothing to add to this discussion?

[EbylHusker]

That hit should have been flagged. Sorry, that's a 15 yarder. We got lucky.

 

 

What kind of sun dress do you wear when you watch the game?

^This

The kind where I figure they should flag illegal hits like that, I suppose. What kind of rose tinted Husker glasses do you wear?

[Hercules]

Why was that play not reviewed on the Gabbert sack? It was clearly a fumble!

 

I'm still in shock over that. Blatant fumble. Cunningham, unbelievably, starts in again with his "this is what we're trying to remove from the game" horsesh&*, meanwhile, we score a defensive touchdown. A flat out defensive touchdown. No review. (Of course we could only have gained possesion through a review and not the 6 points that we had, in fact, earned, but possession nonetheless.)

 

And no mention of fumble by either broadcaster.

 

Un....real. Oh well. They still couldn't take it from us, could they? GBR!!!!!!

 

The broadcasters mentioned that it looked like fumble and it was not reviewed b/c the play was blown dead on the field. You cannot call a fumble on a review just like you can't call a face-mask.

 

How is a play blown dead before or during a QB sack????

 

It was blown dead (maybe "dead" is not the right word, it was whistled that the play was over) after the sack. They didn't call the fumble on the field so you can't call it on review.

 

Yea after the sack the play is over, but the fumble came while he was still going down.

There is no explanation that is valid to uphold your opinion or the Texass football conference referees or both officials. That was a fumble. But it doesn't really matter now

 

The point is that it was NOT CALLED ON THE FIELD. Yes, it was technically a fumble, but the officials didn't call it, therefore it can not be called on review.

 

Yes, it can be reviewed. You follow the immediate action after the fumble to see who recovered it. Nebraska should have been given the ball at the spot where they recovered the fumble.

 

For proof that they can review a fumble even though the play was blown dead, see earlier in the game, when they reviewed Gabbert's apparent fumble down at the 1 yard line. They saw that his knee was down before the ball came loose, and therefore it was irrelevant. But they were reviewing the apparent fumble, even though he had been called down on the field, because in the immediate action following the apparent fumble, Nebraska had recovered it in the endzone.

 

It IS a reviewable play.

[huskerswrkhavoc]

Why was that play not reviewed on the Gabbert sack? It was clearly a fumble!

 

I'm still in shock over that. Blatant fumble. Cunningham, unbelievably, starts in again with his "this is what we're trying to remove from the game" horsesh&*, meanwhile, we score a defensive touchdown. A flat out defensive touchdown. No review. (Of course we could only have gained possesion through a review and not the 6 points that we had, in fact, earned, but possession nonetheless.)

 

And no mention of fumble by either broadcaster.

 

Un....real. Oh well. They still couldn't take it from us, could they? GBR!!!!!!

 

The broadcasters mentioned that it looked like fumble and it was not reviewed b/c the play was blown dead on the field. You cannot call a fumble on a review just like you can't call a face-mask.

 

How is a play blown dead before or during a QB sack????

 

It was blown dead (maybe "dead" is not the right word, it was whistled that the play was over) after the sack. They didn't call the fumble on the field so you can't call it on review.

 

Yea after the sack the play is over, but the fumble came while he was still going down.

There is no explanation that is valid to uphold your opinion or the Texass football conference referees or both officials. That was a fumble. But it doesn't really matter now

 

The point is that it was NOT CALLED ON THE FIELD. Yes, it was technically a fumble, but the officials didn't call it, therefore it can not be called on review.

 

Yes, it can be reviewed. You follow the immediate action after the fumble to see who recovered it. Nebraska should have been given the ball at the spot where they recovered the fumble.

 

For proof that they can review a fumble even though the play was blown dead, see earlier in the game, when they reviewed Gabbert's apparent fumble down at the 1 yard line. They saw that his knee was down before the ball came loose, and therefore it was irrelevant. But they were reviewing the apparent fumble, even though he had been called down on the field, because in the immediate action following the apparent fumble, Nebraska had recovered it in the endzone.

 

It IS a reviewable play.

 

Thank you I was getting ready to say that. It happened in an NFL game a week or 2 ago also, and Gabbert's play in the north endzone was a perfect example.

[Hujan]

Can anyone advise where to send complaints about Cunningham's commentary? Dude needs to give it a rest, honestly. Given that college football's target audience is predominantly male and predominately young males, ESPN/ABC can't be pleased with Cunningham having himself a good cry in the booth every time someone makes a good hit.

 

For crying out loud. Cunningham, the ladies on The View called; they said to stop being such a sissy.

[TaraTony]

Can anyone advise where to send complaints about Cunningham's commentary? Dude needs to give it a rest, honestly. Given that college football's target audience is predominantly male and predominately young males, ESPN/ABC can't be pleased with Cunningham having himself a good cry in the booth every time someone makes a good hit.

 

For crying out loud. Cunningham, the ladies on The View called; they said to stop being such a sissy.

Don't say "target audience"...he'll want a flag thrown due to "targeting". What a D-Bag! Cunningham that is.

[dutch91701]

Lol at the targeting posts^

 

Here is the hit on Martinez. Clearly, his head is in front of the runner.

 

Nice flash from your camera on the TV. Not exactly an official review. This clearly isn't the moment of impact, so why don't you let those of us with access to civilized technology and, most importantly, knowledge of football, make the decision.

 

Post your picture then, genius. His shoulder pad is literally touching Martinez's leg. What more do you want?

 

Really? You can tell where his shoulder pad is from that picture? I find that odd as the picture is from the other side of the hit and if you took it a split-second later, you'd probably see the helmet come into contact with the leg, which would be a visible point of contact as it would not be hidden behind Martinez's thigh.

[NebraskaShellback]

Helu just got the record .......

 

I am so happy for the kid for shoving those run down the little tigers throats and more running. I felt sorry for Henry for having his field goal attempt blocked, tho.