Ladies, he has all five numbers right.

Saint-Georges Cool FM 103.5

A. Now that I have kids, cutting out 3-4 hours of my day to watch a baseball game is nearly, if not totally, impossible. So I would enjoy this

Keep on being the Raiders, Raiders.

Devils fan, so im putting Brodeur higher. You can argue Marty had better defenseman, but also take into account that his teams never scored. I remember for several years their leading goal scorer was freaking Bobby Holik, who I believe topped out at 29 once. So Brodeur had no real margin for error.

Neeeeeigh!

LOL at WWE for criticizing the handling of a domestic abuse case.

Okay Lions/Eagles/Redskins fan, I want the rule to be a lot simpler. I want the ref to make sure he has caught the ball (nothing extremely complicated, just use your eyes and judgment) and then if he has that, watch for his feet on the ground. If you need to muddle it up further, add that he has to make a football…

Uh, sure. Not seeing your point.

Listen dummy, I'm telling you that the rule should be that the refs look at the ball and his hands. If the ball is in his hands and his feet are on the ground that should be a catch.

catches the ball = possessing the ball in his hand(s).

It would be: If the guy goes up and catches the ball, and he comes down with two feet on the ground that is good enough for a catch.

just saying, two guys made great plays in big spots and it was taken away by something like a figure skating technicality.

Dude, he had possession up to the point it hit the ground.

Well, one could argue he made the catch, took two steps and lost the ball on the reach...

The way the sauce drips, it just makes me never want a chicken parm sandwich.

So it made this a non-catch and it made the Calvin Johnson play a non-catch.

yeah, i would have pinned it on screwing with his mind, shifting between starter and reliever , not TOS.

Dude, when you talk like that you sound like a fool. Mike Reiss is top notch.

Oh no he didn't and oh no you don't.