If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   "We as officials have always been taught, for a ball to be uncatchable, it has to be...a Tim Tebow-type pass that lands 15 yards in front of you"   (usatoday.com) divider line 59
    More: Amusing, Tim Tebow, Panthers, Saints, Aqib Talib, NFL, Patriots, rough the passer, Luke Kuechly  
•       •       •

1739 clicks; posted to Sports » on 20 Nov 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-20 07:06:51 AM  
That is a pretty impressive quote.
 
2013-11-20 07:08:19 AM  
Forward all challenges to the Supreme Court, require a written majority opinion before the game continues.  Don't care if the average game lasts five days.  Get the calls right or I'm only going to seven games next year instead of eight.
 
2013-11-20 07:23:39 AM  
Yes, but for Tebow passes usually angels lift the receiver to the correct height to make the catch. Angels, or piles of bullshiat from Tebow acolytes, but, either way.
 
2013-11-20 07:30:13 AM  
is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.
 
2013-11-20 07:40:24 AM  
Huh.  Quotation marks in Fark headlines don't always indicate a quote FTA.  I was sure that was the case here.  Color me surprised.
 
2013-11-20 07:49:22 AM  
FTFA: "We as officials have always been taught, for a ball to be uncatchable, it has to be clearly out of the field of play or it has to be a kind of - I probably shouldn't say this - a Tim Tebow-type pass that lands 15 yards in front of you," Daopoulos said.

Holy shiatsnacks. He really did say that. I thought Subby was just pissing in the wind*

*also acceptable as a description of a Tim Tebow-type pass.
 
2013-11-20 08:05:51 AM  

I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.


Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.
 
2013-11-20 08:07:31 AM  
OK, that was lulz-worthy...
 
2013-11-20 08:20:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.

Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.


Also to hate the Yankees.  I don't think I've ever seen any group as defined by who they hate as Boston fans.  Patriots lose the Superbowl?  It's OK, the Yankees lost a meaningless February game.  That makes up for it.
 
2013-11-20 08:25:37 AM  
I agree with the Brooks penalty.  Brees looked like he was getting decapitated.  In an era where a player merely brushes the QB's helmet and gets 15 yards, this was entirely appropriate.

The Gronk call was awful, though, and I can't stand either team (mostly because of their QBs).  For the pass to be uncatchable, I would think the receiver would have to be relatively unimpeded, not being carried out of the back of the end zone.  By that formulation, almost every pass is uncatchable.  Gronk has made far tougher catches in his career.
 
2013-11-20 08:28:39 AM  

flak attack: WTF Indeed: I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.

Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.

Also to hate the Yankees.  I don't think I've ever seen any group as defined by who they hate as Boston fans.  Patriots lose the Superbowl?  It's OK, the Yankees lost a meaningless February game.  That makes up for it.


As a Boston fan, I don't know if this is the case anymore. The Yankees used to be the big evil monster, but now, the Sox have won a few, it isn't the same.

And btw - Yes, Pats fans are complaining, but common. Barely a full day has passed.

And where is the "MASSIVE" amount of evidence that our sports hero's use PEDs? The only link I have seen is one website purportedly leaked the 100+ people who tested positive. It was one site, and it was never confirmed. If I'm wrong, go right ahead and post me some links, and I will read them.
 
2013-11-20 08:30:21 AM  
I think the entire "uncatachable pass" part of the rule is stupid. Interference is interference. I've seen some pretty spectacular catches. Who can say what might have happened. Imagine if other sports had this rule. "That player has never made a 3 point shot in his entire career. So, even though he was smacked in the elbow while shooting a 50 foot buzzer beating heave, it's not a foul because that's an unmakable basket."
 
2013-11-20 08:34:32 AM  
Tuck Rule Tom got burned by a bad call? He is usually one of the golden boys the stripes help out. I am a bit confused.
 
2013-11-20 08:40:04 AM  
FTFA:   But Daopoulos said officials should have stood by his back judge Terrence Miles' initial call rather than picking up the flag

At the Jags vs Titans game a couple of weeks ago, the refs picked up four flags.  It was terrible.
 
2013-11-20 08:41:50 AM  

flak attack: WTF Indeed: I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.

Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.

Also to hate the Yankees.  I don't think I've ever seen any group as defined by who they hate as Boston fans.  Patriots lose the Superbowl?  It's OK, the Yankees lost a meaningless February game.  That makes up for it.


i dunno, sports hatred is everywhere in this country, it's as american as apple pie (of course that apple pie is loaded with ped's)
 
2013-11-20 08:44:13 AM  

elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable


It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.
 
2013-11-20 08:50:56 AM  

elguerodiablo: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I agree with the Brooks penalty.  Brees looked like he was getting decapitated.  In an era where a player merely brushes the QB's helmet and gets 15 yards, this was entirely appropriate.

The Gronk call was awful, though, and I can't stand either team (mostly because of their QBs).  For the pass to be uncatchable, I would think the receiver would have to be relatively unimpeded, not being carried out of the back of the end zone.  By that formulation, almost every pass is uncatchable.  Gronk has made far tougher catches in his career.

I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable.  If Kuechly winked out existence it still would have been picked off before it got to Gronk.  But you still shouldn't be able to mug a guy while your buddy picks it off.  I think what's really getting lost in all of this is Amendola's awesome leapfrog over Kuechly at the end.

http://www.diehardsport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/pass-inter-th at -wasnt-mnf-patriots-panthers.gif

Gif too big to post in thread.


yeah i could see that from that angle, but from a side view angle the moment Kuechly starts bear hugging him and pushing him backwards was pretty damn close to where the ball landed... so we're assuming it's uncatchable because of the action of a defensive player pushing the offense player - sounds like DPI

the whole thing reminds me of the end of the super bowl when people complained that Crabtree was held, everybody argued for one side or the other but the final answer came down to being legal for a defensive player to push and hold 2 yards off the line of scrimmage... this happens all the time, and it's how defenses disrupt timing and routes (part of the game)... it was easy to say "oh, DPI" on that super bowl play but the fact that the LoS was close to the goal line made that play legal

the difference being this play happened well beyond the LoS

i think if Gronk had simply fought with Kuechly they would've given him the flag, teams abuse that all the time with "this guy is holding because i'm acting crazy like a madman in a straight-jacket!" antics, and it works
 
2013-11-20 08:52:49 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable

It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.


lolwut

Show me where he got "pulled"
 
2013-11-20 09:09:58 AM  

elguerodiablo: whizbangthedirtfarmer: elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable

It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.

I think it was short and picked whether the linebacker was there or not.  But who knows? Gronk can fly upside down.  Maybe the laws of physics dont apply to him.

[wp.streetwise.co image 640x480]

But no matter the official explination you still shouldn't be able to mug a guy like that past 5 yards on a pass play.  Can you imagine if this was used as a precedent and you could just have one guy mug a receiver while the other guy picks it on every single double team.  It would ruin everything we love about DAGRONS.


You'd have to count on an underthrow every time or you'd draw the flag.
 
2013-11-20 09:12:59 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: whizbangthedirtfarmer: elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable

It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.

lolwut

Show me where he got "pulled"


All right, bear hugged and pushed. Is that better?
 
2013-11-20 09:26:33 AM  

I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.



Most of the teams in the NFC are whining too.  That game made a wild card spot MUCH harder to clinch for the Lions/Bears/Packers/Niners/Cards.
 
2013-11-20 09:28:22 AM  

coffeeplease: cameroncrazy1984: whizbangthedirtfarmer: elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable

It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.

lolwut

Show me where he got "pulled"

All right, bear hugged and pushed. Is that better?


Yep.  And you've have to purposefully missing the point to disagree.

I'll also note that receivers catch "uncatchable" passes all the time.  Hell, Doug Baldwin in SEA makes a career of it.
 
2013-11-20 09:32:36 AM  
Guess that makes Teebus's playoff victory over the Steelers even more incredible.
 
2013-11-20 09:47:49 AM  
Welp, Mr. Tebow.  When even the red headed step children of sports are beating on you, it might be time to officially call it quits.

Also, this green is a day late.  The NFL ref-a-ma-doofies changed Monday Night's call on the field yesterday from "uncatchable" to "simultaneous contact between the d-back/ball and Kuechly /Gronkowski."
Because you can do that.
 
2013-11-20 09:51:30 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Huh.  Quotation marks in Fark headlines don't always indicate a quote FTA.  I was sure that was the case here.  Color me surprised.


He's working the system for the next fuzzy call. He knows that the past is done.
 
2013-11-20 10:09:22 AM  

Cincinnati Kid: I think the entire "uncatachable pass" part of the rule is stupid. Interference is interference. I've seen some pretty spectacular catches. Who can say what might have happened. Imagine if other sports had this rule. "That player has never made a 3 point shot in his entire career. So, even though he was smacked in the elbow while shooting a 50 foot buzzer beating heave, it's not a foul because that's an unmakable basket."


iirc back in the 70's or so the uncatchable aspect of DPI wasn't part of the rule and there were DPI being called on passes that there were so far over the receivers head that even if the player was 10 feet tall there would be no catch but hey lets reward the horrible throw with the ball at the 1 yard line. 

I agree with the article and feel sorry for the refs, heck I have no clue what warrants DPI anymore
 
2013-11-20 10:09:55 AM  
I thought it was uncatchable because it was intercepted in the front of the end-zone, while the receiver was way in the back.
 
2013-11-20 10:33:42 AM  

Rent Party: I thought it was uncatchable because it was intercepted in the front of the end-zone, while the receiver was way in the back.


This is generally my opinion as well, but the rule states that PI should be called until someone touches the ball.

If you look at the video very slowly you have to judge when the contact becomes PI. I think the contact becomes PI a fraction of a second before the ball is intercepted but that is with the benefit of a slow speed video replay, not judging the situation in real time.

So, absolutely, technically (the best kind of right) there was PI. But would it have mattered? No, because even without the presence of Kuechly, Gronkowski would have watched the ball be intercepted four yards in front of him - he broke too late on the ball and it was thrown behind him too.

What everyone appears to assume here is that even if the PI call was upheld that the Patriots would score. They would have had one shot at it from the one yard line. Certainly a high probability but not a certainty.
 
2013-11-20 10:46:39 AM  

elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable.


Same here.  If that's not it, then the flag should have stayed.

whizbangthedirtfarmer: It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.


Gronk himself disagrees with you.  Watch the gif that was posted in this thread.  He doesn't even complain or anything.  He knew he never stood a chance because the safety picked it off far in front of him.  It's not until he sees the flag on the ground that he decides "oh yeah, sweet, it was pass interference, sure."
 
2013-11-20 10:53:29 AM  

slykens1: What everyone appears to assume here is that even if the PI call was upheld that the Patriots would score. They would have had one shot at it from the one yard line. Certainly a high probability but not a certainty.


That's not my assumption at all. Mine is that Gronk had a shot to compete for the ball and the Pats should have had a shot to compete for the endzone. I thought the Panthers played really well and deserved the win. But nobody wants to win like that.
 
2013-11-20 10:53:59 AM  
At a minimum it was defensive holding. 5 yards and another down. Catchability does not matter for defensive holding.
 
2013-11-20 11:24:43 AM  

MyRandomName: At a minimum it was defensive holding. 5 yards and another down. Catchability does not matter for defensive holding.


Ball is in the air.  It can't be holding.
 
2013-11-20 11:45:37 AM  

slykens1: Rent Party: I thought it was uncatchable because it was intercepted in the front of the end-zone, while the receiver was way in the back.

This is generally my opinion as well, but the rule states that PI should be called until someone touches the ball.

If you look at the video very slowly you have to judge when the contact becomes PI. I think the contact becomes PI a fraction of a second before the ball is intercepted but that is with the benefit of a slow speed video replay, not judging the situation in real time.

So, absolutely, technically (the best kind of right) there was PI. But would it have mattered? No, because even without the presence of Kuechly, Gronkowski would have watched the ball be intercepted four yards in front of him - he broke too late on the ball and it was thrown behind him too.

What everyone appears to assume here is that even if the PI call was upheld that the Patriots would score. They would have had one shot at it from the one yard line. Certainly a high probability but not a certainty.


That's my take, too. Although I wouldn't call anything against Carolina's defense highly probable.   That is a hot, hot football team.
 
2013-11-20 11:50:50 AM  
Uncatchable  !!??!!  The ball  WAS CAUGHT.
 
2013-11-20 11:51:05 AM  
The NFL is falling back on semantics - saying they used "proper mechanics" to make a "tight judgment call."
They aren't saying "The call was correct for these reasons". They are backing the refs without saying they made the right call....

Because they didn't.

Hopefully, the Pats come out mad and curb stomp Manning.
 
2013-11-20 11:57:08 AM  

flak attack: MyRandomName: At a minimum it was defensive holding. 5 yards and another down. Catchability does not matter for defensive holding.

Ball is in the air.  It can't be holding.


This is where I don't get all the whining. You can see the safety break on the ball right before Gronk was contacted. The safety breaking on the ball means it's in the air. The safety had to step around Gronk to make that break on the ball (while the ball was in the air) then the linebacker makes contact.

Good god, some people are deliberately dense.
 
2013-11-20 12:22:26 PM  

AdamK: i think if Gronk had simply fought with Kuechly they would've given him the flag, teams abuse that all the time with "this guy is holding because i'm acting crazy like a madman in a straight-jacket!" antics, and it works


That's the default Eric Decker route.  Run 10 yards, get into your break, flail wildly until the whistle.
 
2013-11-20 12:29:46 PM  
I think that, aside from the call being right or wrong, the absolute wrong move was for the refs to do the "no penalty game over kthxbye" sprint to the tunnel. An Ed Hochuli-style explanation was warranted, at a minimum, for a decision that determines the game. At least it would have changed the complaints to "well, I understand, but I disagree" instead of "what the fark was that and where the hell are you going?"
 
2013-11-20 12:34:26 PM  

lennavan: elguerodiablo: I thought the fact that the safety cut on the ball and picked it off well before it got to Gronk was what made it uncatchable.

Same here.  If that's not it, then the flag should have stayed.

whizbangthedirtfarmer: It never got to Gronk because he was literally grabbed and pulled off of his route, by about five yards.

Gronk himself disagrees with you.  Watch the gif that was posted in this thread.  He doesn't even complain or anything.  He knew he never stood a chance because the safety picked it off far in front of him.  It's not until he sees the flag on the ground that he decides "oh yeah, sweet, it was pass interference, sure."


Dang.  I totally agree with you.  I was unaware that you were telepathic.
 
2013-11-20 01:21:55 PM  
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4753554 / sports-science-examines-game-ending-call

If Kuechly hadn't blocked Gronk path to the ball, Gronk would have had a chance to make a difficult catch. Interfering with a players path to ball is PI, regardless of the outcome of that throw, unless that player is also attempting to catch the ball, which Kuechly cleary isn't doing.

The game can't end on a defensive penalty.
 
2013-11-20 01:45:15 PM  

Publikwerks: flak attack: WTF Indeed: I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.

Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.

Also to hate the Yankees.  I don't think I've ever seen any group as defined by who they hate as Boston fans.  Patriots lose the Superbowl?  It's OK, the Yankees lost a meaningless February game.  That makes up for it.

As a Boston fan, I don't know if this is the case anymore. The Yankees used to be the big evil monster, but now, the Sox have won a few, it isn't the same.

And btw - Yes, Pats fans are complaining, but common. Barely a full day has passed.

And where is the "MASSIVE" amount of evidence that our sports hero's use PEDs? The only link I have seen is one website purportedly leaked the 100+ people who tested positive. It was one site, and it was never confirmed. If I'm wrong, go right ahead and post me some links, and I will read them.


David Ortiz promised years ago that he would explain his positive test (er, rather, leaked positive test). He was on the juice in the early 2000s, everyone knows it. Get over it.
 
2013-11-20 02:18:22 PM  

Moopy Mac: Publikwerks: flak attack: WTF Indeed: I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.

Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.

Also to hate the Yankees.  I don't think I've ever seen any group as defined by who they hate as Boston fans.  Patriots lose the Superbowl?  It's OK, the Yankees lost a meaningless February game.  That makes up for it.

As a Boston fan, I don't know if this is the case anymore. The Yankees used to be the big evil monster, but now, the Sox have won a few, it isn't the same.

And btw - Yes, Pats fans are complaining, but common. Barely a full day has passed.

And where is the "MASSIVE" amount of evidence that our sports hero's use PEDs? The only link I have seen is one website purportedly leaked the 100+ people who tested positive. It was one site, and it was never confirmed. If I'm wrong, go right ahead and post me some links, and I will read them.

David Ortiz promised years ago that he would explain his positive test (er, rather, leaked positive test). He was on the juice in the early 2000s, everyone knows it. Get over it.


That is MASSIVE
 
2013-11-20 02:40:08 PM  

Moopy Mac: Publikwerks: flak attack: WTF Indeed: I_C_Weener: is it the first time Tom Brady has lost a controversial call? there's a whole lot of whining going on.

Boston fans live to whine about sports, ignore the massive amount of evidence that their sports heroes use PEDs.

Also to hate the Yankees.  I don't think I've ever seen any group as defined by who they hate as Boston fans.  Patriots lose the Superbowl?  It's OK, the Yankees lost a meaningless February game.  That makes up for it.

As a Boston fan, I don't know if this is the case anymore. The Yankees used to be the big evil monster, but now, the Sox have won a few, it isn't the same.

And btw - Yes, Pats fans are complaining, but common. Barely a full day has passed.

And where is the "MASSIVE" amount of evidence that our sports hero's use PEDs? The only link I have seen is one website purportedly leaked the 100+ people who tested positive. It was one site, and it was never confirmed. If I'm wrong, go right ahead and post me some links, and I will read them.

David Ortiz promised years ago that he would explain his positive test (er, rather, leaked positive test). He was on the juice in the early 2000s, everyone knows it. Get over it.



Ahhh, going with the Wookie defense I see.
Allow me to retort-
www.connect-dots.com
"Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!"
 
2013-11-20 03:07:47 PM  

Cincinnati Kid: I think the entire "uncatachable pass" part of the rule is stupid. Interference is interference. I've seen some pretty spectacular catches. Who can say what might have happened. Imagine if other sports had this rule. "That player has never made a 3 point shot in his entire career. So, even though he was smacked in the elbow while shooting a 50 foot buzzer beating heave, it's not a foul because that's an unmakable basket."


THIS.

Gronkowski is 6'6" and his hands are nearly the size of frying pans.  I've seen that guy make some ridiculous catches in his short career.  The only reason that ball was "uncatchable" was because he was being pushed to the back of the end zone.  I'm not saying he would have caught it, but he'd have had a CHANCE to catch it.

Which is why that was pass interference.

And that wasn't the only thing the refs screwed up in that game.  The non-call on the leg whip was just as egregious, but at least you can argue they may not have seen that happen.
 
2013-11-20 03:35:18 PM  

Dog Welder: And that wasn't the only thing the refs screwed up in that game.  The non-call on the leg whip was just as egregious, but at least you can argue they may not have seen that happen.


Yeah, I'm glad Charles Johnson was ok. I wonder if the NFL fines Cannon, because I think he deserves it, but in the aftermath of the botched call, I wonder if Cannon gets a freebie
 
2013-11-20 03:48:05 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Guess that makes Teebus's playoff victory over the Steelers even more incredible.


Not really, have you seen the Squeelers since? They're terrible. The playoff game Teebus played after the Pitt one was a more accurate view of how he was against a real team.

/Teebus still has more playoff wins as a Bronco than Forehead.
//I hope they get a bye and we get a patented one and done by Peyton
///Slashies in threes! Go Raiders!
 
2013-11-20 04:24:37 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I agree with the Brooks penalty.  Brees looked like he was getting decapitated.  In an era where a player merely brushes the QB's helmet and gets 15 yards, this was entirely appropriate.

The Gronk call was awful, though, and I can't stand either team (mostly because of their QBs).  For the pass to be uncatchable, I would think the receiver would have to be relatively unimpeded, not being carried out of the back of the end zone.  By that formulation, almost every pass is uncatchable.  Gronk has made far tougher catches in his career.


I didn't watch the game, but from the replays on today, it looks like it was "uncatchable", because regardless of the defender on his back, he still would have had to be 10 or so yards closer to catch the ball...

That's how I saw it, he was way too far back, even without the defender, to catch the ball.... Of course, like I said, I didn't watch the game itself, so I didn't get to sit through 47 replays from 58 different angles... Even if it WAS a bad call, fark Brady, I'm sick of that whiny little shiat anyway.
 
2013-11-20 04:26:43 PM  
Boston sports fans biatching about something? How unusual...
 
2013-11-20 04:28:19 PM  
The REAL problem here is that NOBODY can accurately define pass interference. Admit it, we've ALL seen shiat that we thought was interference that was never called(And was later backed up by people who wanted it called), just like we've all seen interference called when there seemed to be nobody around(I actually think thre was a Pittsburgh game this year, where this was the case, nobody was within 5 yards of the person who supposedly got interfered with). Pass interference seems to be the one call nobody can ever farking agree on.
 
2013-11-20 04:46:55 PM  
M.D, Jennings says "a bad call that went in favor of the defense? fark me."

/if Brady didn't throw into sextuple coverage we wouldn't be talking about whether one of the 6 defenders interfered
//Kuechly has an absolute right to where he is too
///Kenbrell Thompkins still standing alone in the corner of the end zone, waving his arms
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report