Worst. Call. Ever

[Suigi]

Actually, the Hockey News did an article on this.

Apparently, they claimed that the '93 edition of the Buds were the best they've ever iced.

Want proof? Play EA's original NHL Hockey on the Genesis.

Just try and beat a first-line Toronto team. It simply can't be done.

A simulated Toronto-Montreal series had the Leafs sweeping the Habs.

As for McSorley's stick dealy, they said that wouldn't matter at all.

Call me biased, but my claim still stands. The whole of Leafs Nation knows that '93 will be the closest we'll get to having Lord Stanley's Mug inside the ACC instead of down the street at the HHOF.

[WSU151]

Actually, the Hockey News did an article on this.

Apparently, they claimed that the '93 edition of the Buds were the best they've ever iced.

Want proof? Play EA's original NHL Hockey on the Genesis.

Just try and beat a first-line Toronto team. It simply can't be done.

A simulated Toronto-Montreal series had the Leafs sweeping the Habs.

Holy crap. I've heard everything. This happens to fall into the "most ridiculous argument ever because it's based on a game for the Sega Genesis" category.

[rmered]

I'm confused at all of the "Tuck Rule" comments.  It wasn't a bad call - the refs called what was (and still is) in the rule book.  It may be the dumbest rule in the NFL rule book, but the officials called it correctly.

If you didn't see the game, which i doubt you did, let me refresh your memory. The referees originally called it a fumble to begin with. Raiders ball, game over. Only after that did the the ref hit up the "peep show" to review the play, only to overrule the original call.

If they had actually called it right the first time, by calling the pass incomplete from the second the ball hit the ground, none of us would still be talking about this.

Yes, I did see the game. What you are telling me is that the bad call was the original call of fumble by the referee, and not the reversal when the booth assistant challenged the call?

Pretty much. The Raiders having been rewarded the fumble, and what would have been the win after taking a couple knees, only to have the first call be incorrect, on top of what has got to be the most ridiculous rule in sports, makes it the worst call ever, IN MY OPINION.

The rule sucks, therefore the overruling sucks.

That is the most bizarre reasoning I've ever heard.

You don't like a rule, so when that rule is acted upon, it makes for a blown call?

Let's say I don't like offside in hockey.

I think players should have the right to cross the line any time they like puck in the zone or not.

Therefore, by your logic, every official who calls offside is a CHEAT.

[infrared41]

That is the most bizarre reasoning I've ever heard.

You don't like a rule, so when that rule is acted upon, it makes for a blown call?

Let's say I don't like offside in hockey.

I think players should have the right to cross the line any time they like puck in the zone or not.

Therefore, by your logic, every official who calls offside is a CHEAT.

You are trying to compare two things that are not at all similar. In Hockey the offsides rule makes sense and it's part of every game. I doubt that anyone has an issue with it. Offsides in football is also a very common part of the game. Most every team sport has infractions or rules that are called in most every game. Baseball being the noted exception. Infractions in baseball for the most part are overlooked unless pointed out by the other team i.e batting out of order, leaving a base too soon on a fly ball etc. Balks, running out of the baselines etc. are called but others are not.

The problem with the "Tuck Rule" is that most people had never heard of it before that game. To anyone but the most dedicated NFL rules freak, the tuck rule looked like it was literally made up on the spot. It's as horrible a rule as it was obscure before that game. So to compare the tuck rule to offsides in hockey is simply a slippery slope argument and it doesn't hold up. In order for your comparison to truly work you really need to find an obscure rule to compare to the tuck rule.

No offense but the true flawed logic is your own. You're comparing apples and oranges. Both are round fruits but that's where the similarities end.

[rmered]

That is the most bizarre reasoning I've ever heard.

You don't like a rule, so when that rule is acted upon, it makes for a blown call?

Let's say I don't like offside in hockey.

I think players should have the right to cross the line any time they like puck in the zone or not.

Therefore, by your logic, every official who calls offside is a CHEAT.

You are trying to compare two things that are not at all similar. In Hockey the offsides rule makes sense and it's part of every game. I doubt that anyone has an issue with it. Offsides in football is also a very common part of the game. Most every team sport has infractions or rules that are called in most every game. Baseball being the noted exception. Infractions in baseball for the most part are overlooked unless pointed out by the other team i.e batting out of order, leaving a base too soon on a fly ball etc. Balks, running out of the baselines etc. are called but others are not.

The problem with the "Tuck Rule" is that most people had never heard of it before that game. To anyone but the most dedicated NFL rules freak, the tuck rule looked like it was literally made up on the spot. It's as horrible a rule as it was obscure before that game. So to compare the tuck rule to offsides in hockey is simply a slippery slope argument and it doesn't hold up. In order for your comparison to truly work you really need to find an obscure rule to compare to the tuck rule.

No offense but the true flawed logic is your own. You're comparing apples and oranges. Both are round fruits but that's where the similarities end.

The only difference is one happens twice every quarter, the other once every 5 years.

But both are laws of the game.

OK, I exaggerated to make a point.

But that doesn't make the Tuck rule, whether you agree with it or not, any less correct than offside.

Just because some (even most) people don't know the Rules of the games doesn't mean the official made a mistake just because he DOES know the rules of the game. Even obscure rules are valid rules.

No offence taken I just don't understand how so many people think the official made a mistake when he actually got it right. And the only reason they think it was a bad call was they don't like the rule.

We had a situation in Aussie Rules where a player told his opponent, who he'd just hit in the head "get up you f***ing weak c**t".

The umpire paid a penalty against him for swearing at an opponent.

That is an example of a rule made up on the spot.

You can say whatever you like to an opponent, except for racial or religious vilification.

But the tuck rule is different. It is a rule. So it's not a bad call.

[slapshot]

We had a situation in Aussie Rules where a player told his opponent, who he'd just hit in the head "get up you f***ing weak c**t".

The umpire paid a penalty against him for swearing at an opponent.

That is an example of a rule made up on the spot.

You can say whatever you like to an opponent, except for racial or religious vilification.

Aren't there penalties in Aussie Rules for unsportsmanlike conduct? I know that over here in the pro level of most sports, taunting is pretty much part of the game, but if one player says something that sets another player off, both could be penalized.

[infrared41]

OK, I exaggerated to make a point.

But that doesn't make the Tuck rule, whether you agree with it or not, any less correct than offside.

Just because some (even most) people don't know the Rules of the games doesn't mean the official made a mistake just because he DOES know the rules of the game. Even obscure rules are valid rules.

No offence taken I just don't understand how so many people think the official made a mistake when he actually got it right. And the only reason they think it was a bad call was they don't like the rule.

Fair enough. The tuck rule is a rule and based on that rule the correct call might have been made. That still does not excuse the play from being one of the worst calls ever. The rules are still enforced by officials who are bound by the same subjective judgement as anyone else. Sometimes we will all agree that there was a clear violation on a play and other plays will be debated until the proverbial cows come home.

[Roger Clemente]

Kerry Fraser's non-call on Wayne Gretzky's high stick in Game 6 of the 1993 Western Conference Final.

Gretzky gets called, Andreychuk or Gilmour score on the ensuing power-play, Leafs move on to Finals, win Cup, END OF FREAKIN' STORY.

Failing that, the non-goal that Marty Gelinas scored in Game 6 of the 2004 Finals.

THE.

PUCK.

WAS.

IN.

1. As I mentioned before, didn't the refs miss a call not five minutes before Gretzky's non-call in which a Leafs player headbutted a Kings player?

2. Nobody at all has any conclusive evidence that the puck did cross the line. Two things you have to keep in mind: 1. The puck was airborne, as was evidence in a picture taken from along the goal line showing the puck at 5 five inches in the air (and upright too) directly over the line (but nowhere near having completely crossed it). 2. That angle that ABC had that showed the space between the puck and the line still couldn't prove anything because the puck was airborn and upright (making it skinnier) and the camera angle was low.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[yh]

The 1990 MU-CU fifth down.

[DGivens87]

When the Raiders got robbed by the tuck rule in the AFC divisional playoffs a few years back.  That rule is horse:censored:, and it's still around!! 

The Tuck Rule was payback for the '76 Pats-Raiders playoff game when the refs called Ray Hamilton for "roughing the passer" after the he clearly hit Kenny Stabler a split second after he threw the pass. It was a 4th and goal, the call gives the Raiders new life, and they win the game.

Karma - ain't it a b*tch?

I'm sure that's what was going through the ref's head when he was in the "peep show"" reviewing the play. "I'm gonna punk the Raiders here, just for what they got away with in '76."

My no means do I think the ref had that in mind...

I'm just saying - the universe has a way of balancing everything, including a bad call from '76 lol...call it fate, if you will.

In any event, just get used to the fact that the Patriots have been a pretty dominant team for the past two years.

[wheateater]

Actually, the Hockey News did an article on this.

Apparently, they claimed that the '93 edition of the Buds were the best they've ever iced.

Want proof? Play EA's original NHL Hockey on the Genesis.

Just try and beat a first-line Toronto team. It simply can't be done.

A simulated Toronto-Montreal series had the Leafs sweeping the Habs.

As for McSorley's stick dealy, they said that wouldn't matter at all.

Call me biased, but my claim still stands. The whole of Leafs Nation knows that '93 will be the closest we'll get to having Lord Stanley's Mug inside the ACC instead of down the street at the HHOF.

My God. Did you just do what I think you did? You're using a video game as support to your claim that something that never happened would have happened given the opportunity?

:censored:, man, the Kings won 3 other games besides Game 6. That alleged best team ever got beat, plain and simple. Shouldn't they have won 16 straight games that year then?

[Discrim]

Charlotte Hornets at Orlando Magic, Eastern Conference second round 2002.

(pre-blurb disclaimer: the Bucks, Sonics and Knicks were'nt involved, so favoritism has nothing to do with this)

Although the Hornets would win the game and series, I recall this bullplop call...the game was tied, and Baron Davis hit the gamewinning three. Problem was, the ref decided the actual clock no longer counted (just under 2 seconds left), so he waved off the shot even before Baron released the ball. If you were wondering why the backboard lights up after the clock hits 0.0, this call was the reason. The reason nobody remembers it aside from Magic or Hornets fans is cus Charlotte won in OT anyway, and then won the series.

[Nick 1733]

I've got two here that I remember that haven't been mentioned.

First is from a Seahawks/Jets game not too long ago where Vinny was stopped short of the goal line but while on the ground moved the ball over the line and it was called a touchdown.

Nuggets/Lakers 2003/04: Denver leading by two with the clock winding down and I don't remember who but a Denver player took a shot so the shot clock wouldn't run out and the ball clearly hit the rim but the ref blew the whistle for a shot clock violation, so Denver should have retained possession but for whatever reason the ref called for a jump ball. Shaq obviously won the tip, but he also 'jumped' the tip before allowed. So right there are two VERY bad calls all at once, which cost Denver that game.

[Cujo]

Nick, one bad call that you left off your list, was the time you decided to get your eyebrow pierced.