Smellyman":2lpqj4j7 said:I hate how all the talk is that it cost the Texans the game. (obvisous penalty too)
It would've still benn 3rd and 5.
Even with the penalty needed another 20 yards for FG range.
The BS PI call on Browner, ON 3RD DOWN, I thought was going to cost Seattle. Luckily, Seattle came up with a big sack on the next play.
The Radish":iq1ojthg said:Smellyman":iq1ojthg said:I hate how all the talk is that it cost the Texans the game. (obvisous penalty too)
It would've still benn 3rd and 5.
Even with the penalty needed another 20 yards for FG range.
The BS PI call on Browner, ON 3RD DOWN, I thought was going to cost Seattle. Luckily, Seattle came up with a big sack on the next play.
Browner clearly was at fault there. Never turned to find the ball and clearly pushed the guy out of bounds. Not every penalty is a conspiracy.
:roll:
Smellyman":hxvku9l9 said:The Radish":hxvku9l9 said:Smellyman":hxvku9l9 said:I hate how all the talk is that it cost the Texans the game. (obvisous penalty too)
It would've still benn 3rd and 5.
Even with the penalty needed another 20 yards for FG range.
The BS PI call on Browner, ON 3RD DOWN, I thought was going to cost Seattle. Luckily, Seattle came up with a big sack on the next play.
Browner clearly was at fault there. Never turned to find the ball and clearly pushed the guy out of bounds. Not every penalty is a conspiracy.
:roll:
an uncatchable ball and in no way am I talking conspiracy. I am pointing out how the Hawk D came up with a sack and Hou didn't step up...
:roll:
ivotuk":2ogppw3n said:That ball was uncatchable out of bounds, not sure why the DPI was called