It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:46 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Kodiak wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
We should have protested the game,. We got screwed out of 1st place and possible playoff seeding. END OF STORY

THE GAME IS FIXED!!!



That's what is irritating. If the same guy can't apply the rule consistently, then ignore the hyper-minutia of an obvious bad rule.

Attempting to explain and justify your ruling just makes things that much worse. NOBODY understands the rule as written. "Professionals" paid to interpret and apply those rules clearly don't understand them as written. And the worst thing about it is, even after you explain it people STILL don't understand what the hell.....So why are we overruling these calls on the field?


I think people need to get out of their comforts of not believing this. You get it, lots of others have come around to understanding it's not a conspiracy theory.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 3425
Location: Upstate NY
To me the thing that needs to be pointed out is the exact verbiage in the rule. If it does state when he initially hits the ground (as his knee) ..... then it's further evidence of manipulation. I call bullshit. The same ref three times now......on that note did he call all three the exact same way?

I'm unaware, but again, I'm sure there is bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12102
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
The same ref three times now......on that note did he call all three the exact same way?


If you mean calling all 3 in NE's favor, then yes he called them all the same way.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16847
I'm coming around to the belief that the non-hold/DPI call on the last play was more egregious than the James overrule. If Rowe doesn't grab Rogers' jersey, he gets nowhere near the leverage to make the play.

_________________
Fuck the Patriots.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
BethlehemSteel wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
I don't really care about the "why"....

What I do know is to win 3 games on calls like these IN ONE SEASON is another inexplicably monstrous outlier....just another to add to the long list in the Belicheat era.


Now that we have a set precedence of 3 game outcomes decided for NE with same Ref on these "gamed rules", it's hard not to add that to the list of back room Robert Kraft collusion


I do not believe Corrente worked the Houston/Pats game.

In fact, now I know it wasn't him- looked it up on Pro Football Reference...it was John Parry.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
bradshaw2ben wrote:
I'm coming around to the belief that the non-hold/DPI call on the last play was more egregious than the James overrule. If Rowe doesn't grab Rogers' jersey, he gets nowhere near the leverage to make the play.


I'm telling you that in real time I don't see Rogers getting slowed up.

It's too bang bang for DPI to be called there, B2B.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12102
Jeemie wrote:
I do not believe Corrente worked the Houston/Pats game.

In fact, now I know it wasn't him- looked it up on Pro Football Reference...it was John Parry.


Riveron was the guy in the NY studio lording over all 3 of those reviews.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:23 pm
Posts: 3651
Both the Steelers and the Putriots* are flawed, so there's no guarentee they meet in the AFCCG. But if it does come down to a game in foxboro, Bring It On. Seriously. The only thing more satisfying than getting over the hump in our house would be getting over the hump in their house.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:25 pm
Posts: 122
Kodiak wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
I do not believe Corrente worked the Houston/Pats game.

In fact, now I know it wasn't him- looked it up on Pro Football Reference...it was John Parry.


Riveron was the guy in the NY studio lording over all 3 of those reviews.


Can someone give me a non bullshit reason why the officials need "help" from New York?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 9284
Jeemie wrote:
bradshaw2ben wrote:
I'm coming around to the belief that the non-hold/DPI call on the last play was more egregious than the James overrule. If Rowe doesn't grab Rogers' jersey, he gets nowhere near the leverage to make the play.


I'm telling you that in real time I don't see Rogers getting slowed up.

It's too bang bang for DPI to be called there, B2B.




You absolutely make that call, and its not like you awarded the steelers the game by calling the obvious DPI, you offer both teams another chance to decide the game on their own rather than the refs becoming the focal point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
Kodiak wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
I do not believe Corrente worked the Houston/Pats game.

In fact, now I know it wasn't him- looked it up on Pro Football Reference...it was John Parry.


Riveron was the guy in the NY studio lording over all 3 of those reviews.


Well yeah- that's true.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
GreekSteel wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
bradshaw2ben wrote:
I'm coming around to the belief that the non-hold/DPI call on the last play was more egregious than the James overrule. If Rowe doesn't grab Rogers' jersey, he gets nowhere near the leverage to make the play.


I'm telling you that in real time I don't see Rogers getting slowed up.

It's too bang bang for DPI to be called there, B2B.




You absolutely make that call, and its not like you awarded the steelers the game by calling the obvious DPI, you offer both teams another chance to decide the game on their own rather than the refs becoming the focal point.


What I'm saying is in real time it's not as obvious as you are all making it out to be. There is no indication real-time that Rogers was impeded or Rowe got extra leverage. There simply isn't.

Slo-mo and freeze frames let you see it, but real time, it's not apparent.

I've said that from the beginning...we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Ben is not absolved...it was a dumb throw. That ball needs to be thrown low if it's going to be thrown...not high.

Sliding grab so it's either caught or incomplete.

The Steelers had two shots after the James overturn...the two plays they chose were horrible.

And that Bryant wasn't on the field was a travesty...so the coaches aren't absolved either.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Kodiak wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
I do not believe Corrente worked the Houston/Pats game.

In fact, now I know it wasn't him- looked it up on Pro Football Reference...it was John Parry.


Riveron was the guy in the NY studio lording over all 3 of those reviews.


Riveron is a managed dolt. They got him off the field because he was incompetent, they moved him into that position to further fuck with him and the games outcomes

If you can't see that, then whatever.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16847
Jeemie wrote:
GreekSteel wrote:
You absolutely make that call, and its not like you awarded the steelers the game by calling the obvious DPI, you offer both teams another chance to decide the game on their own rather than the refs becoming the focal point.


What I'm saying is in real time it's not as obvious as you are all making it out to be. There is no indication real-time that Rogers was impeded or Rowe got extra leverage. There simply isn't.

Slo-mo and freeze frames let you see it, but real time, it's not apparent.

The official standing at the goal post has one responsibility during this play: he's watching Eli Rogers from presnap to post-whistle. The jersey pull is immediately in front on the official responsible for watching Rogers.

_________________
Fuck the Patriots.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:57 pm
Posts: 189
Kodiak wrote:
Same ref in NY made the call on ALL THREE of those NE games this year.

A heck of a lot easier when you only have to pay off 1 guy instead of a different crew of 8 every week....


Yep, the "one guy" is on retainer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4537
bradshaw2ben wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
GreekSteel wrote:
You absolutely make that call, and its not like you awarded the steelers the game by calling the obvious DPI, you offer both teams another chance to decide the game on their own rather than the refs becoming the focal point.


What I'm saying is in real time it's not as obvious as you are all making it out to be. There is no indication real-time that Rogers was impeded or Rowe got extra leverage. There simply isn't.

Slo-mo and freeze frames let you see it, but real time, it's not apparent.

The official standing at the goal post has one responsibility during this play: he's watching Eli Rogers from presnap to post-whistle. The jersey pull is immediately in front on the official responsible for watching Rogers.


Did you see the Ravens/49ers SB a few years back? They ain't calling that stuff at the end of the game in the EZ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Did you see the Ravens/49ers SB a few years back? They ain't calling that stuff at the end of the game in the EZ


The refs and the NFL cabal are a convenient target to mask the fact that the coaches and players put themselves in a situation to be fucked over by the refs and the NFL cabal.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 9826
Didn’t the refs throw something like 3 consecutive flags for PI or holding in the final seconds of the KC at Oakland game earlier this year?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:55 pm
Posts: 715
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Did you see the Ravens/49ers SB a few years back? They ain't calling that stuff at the end of the game in the EZ


The refs and the NFL cabal are a convenient target to mask the fact that the coaches and players put themselves in a situation to be fucked over by the refs and the NFL cabal.


It's a known fact by now, when you play the Pats, as a team, you play the officials. No team benefits more from calls/no calls than the Pats.

Many times, that out of coaches and players control.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
Stillchest wrote:
It's a known fact by now, when you play the Pats, as a team, you play the officials. No team benefits more from calls/no calls than the Pats.

Many times, that out of coaches and players control.


Play aggressive offense for the full 60 minutes, and take it out of their control to the degree you can.

Play to ride out the last 15 minutes of a one score game...you deserve what you get.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:55 pm
Posts: 731
Kodiak wrote:
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
The same ref three times now......on that note did he call all three the exact same way?
If you mean calling all 3 in NE's favor, then yes he called them all the same way.

Right - he actually applied the rule differently but the outcome always favored the Pats. For both the Steelers and the Jets he said it was no catch / TD because the catch wasn't completed. However, on the Pats TD vs Houston, he said he couldn't tell .....even though the rest of the world saw the ball hit the ground and move.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 9284
Orangesteel wrote:
Didn’t the refs throw something like 3 consecutive flags for PI or holding in the final seconds of the KC at Oakland game earlier this year?




they did indeed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Posts: 1601
I haven't read the whole thread, but why is this a catch, but JJ's wasn't? It's basically the identical play...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000704268/Xavier-Grimble-dives-into-the-end-zone-for-a-20-yard-touchdown

Sorry, couldn't insert the video clip.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7098
DP39 wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread, but why is this a catch, but JJ's wasn't? It's basically the identical play...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000704268/Xavier-Grimble-dives-into-the-end-zone-for-a-20-yard-touchdown

Sorry, couldn't insert the video clip.

Grimble caught the pass, then ran/stumbled/dove into the end zone. That establishes possession.
JJ went to the ground to make the catch, then lunged and extended to the goal line. IMO, that also establishes possession...the officials and NFL disagree.

_________________
"They're standing around, Butz!" - Kevin O'Shea


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group