This is going to be fun. There's flooding throughout the north suburbs and the rain recently turned from merely heavy to downpour. Looking at the radar, it's not going to let up here for a while. At least my shoes are already soaking wet from walking back from the gym. Don't have to worry about that.
It'll be an interesting afternoon at Ryan Field. We've already received over 2 inches of rain so far in Evanston and it's going to get worse and likely stay worse through at least most of the game. Hopefully the lightning stays away.
Hester stood in the endzone like he did against the Giants. He didn't down the ball and waited for the Indy defense to let up. One guy figured it out and tackled him, it was a smart/ingenious move, again. It was at least three. He had one guy coming right at him, one from the left, and one just waiting for him a tad off to the right. He was standing still and surrounded.
That's what was ruled, but that's not why the play wasn't overturned. They "couldn't" overturn it because the refs stopped paying attention and therefore couldn't prove that the Bears recovered the ball. It was laziness with a hint of incompetence at best. That's what the announcers speculated was the reason the refs might have a problem overturning it, but all the ref said that the play stood as called. He could just as easily have been ruling that he was actually down by contact as anything to do with which team recovered. Many times on complicated plays like this, you hear the announcers go on and on about how the referee is checking this, when actually they ruled something completely different. I wouldn't base anything on what the announcers believe is the reason. No, they said they confirmed it with the replay official during the following break.
That's what was ruled, but that's not why the play wasn't overturned. They "couldn't" overturn it because the refs stopped paying attention and therefore couldn't prove that the Bears recovered the ball. It was laziness with a hint of incompetence at best.
So anybody know the answer to this ? There's no stated policy against it. And for all we know, they may not cancel multiple entries from the same person at all. It would kind of seem like a waste of time for them and saying that all entries will be canceled if you do submit more than one is an easy way to limit them. Not many people will risk trying, though. I know I won't. By the way, here are the prices: Section -- NLDS -- NLCS Club Box - IF -- $100 -- $150 Club Box - OF -- 75 -- 125 Field Box - IF -- 75 -- 125 Field Box - OF -- 65 -- 110 Terrace Box - IF -- 60 -- 100 Terrace Box - OF -- 55 -- 90 Upper Deck Box - IF -- 60 -- 100 Upper Deck Box - OF -- 55 -- 90 Bleacher Reserved -- 60 -- 100 Terrace Reserved - IF -- 40 -- 70 Terrace Reserved - OF -- 35 -- 60 Upper Deck Reserved - IF -- 30 -- 50 Upper Deck Reserved - OF -- 25 -- 40 Standing Room Only -- 25 -- 30
What's the diff? The difference is the number of people who get selected. The Cubs select a ton of people to try for the luxury seats. Other teams select very few people. The problem is that other teams do lotteries for games in high demand. The Cubs' lottery is used for seats that don't sell out in most cases. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the Cubs will select a lot of people and will still use the VWR.
It does take effort, in my opinion. When I have 500 or more windows open, it has my undivided attention and I'm constantly scrolling through the different windows to check out each tab, open up new ones, refresh those that get stuck, etc. This thread has certainly taken an odd turn since I last read it. I'll just repeat my only hope that the Cubs will treat this more like the luxury seating lotteries and not like the lotteries that other teams run for playoff and prime regular season games.