It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:53 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3819
StillerInCT wrote:
I've taken a massive step back from the NFL this year for year's past. I haven't watched a full NFL game this year outside of the Steelers and really don't plan to ever again unless they fix some glaring issues in their product. I think the product on the field is absolutely atrocious from the actual play on the field to the refs taking over games because the league now installed so many fucking rules that it's very easy to micromanage outcomes. The problem is that the rules try to be too specific and yet are completely open ended, misinterpreted, and misappropriated from week to week to the point that it's very easy to script games (Not saying it definitively happens, but it's easier now than it ever was if they chose to do it). I spent good money on Sunday to see that game and to have it be decided like that when I have seen very similar plays in other games called TDs is ridiculous.

Over the past 2 years I've found myself getting much more excited about the MLB season and I've recently started getting more and more into the NBA. From a product standpoint those two leagues are far and away better now than the NFL. I went to my first NBA game about a month ago between the Celts and Nets and the experience was fantastic.

The only way things will change is if the fans stop shelling out cold hard cash for NFL bullshit. As a former NFL die-hard I'll gladly start buying more Sox and Celtics garb.


I totally agree, I'm only watching Steelers games. And it is the rules and the reviews that kill my former enjoyment. Too many stoppages, too many rules, they could eliminate 50% of the rules and nobody would notice and nobody cares, the #1 team that wins all the games is the Zebras! LOL :lol:

I've become a soccer fan too, because I hate baseball, can't watch it. Best thing about soccer, almost no rules and almost no stoppages! and BEST OF ALL.... NO REPLAY! But the ASSHOLE AMERICAN TV Announcers keep pushing for it! Luckily Americans don't run that sport and the people from the SMART countries, hopefully won't accept the ruination of their favorite sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Old School Steeler wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
THe catch rule is a ruse for game manipulation

The officials cannot even interpret it by the law. Subjective afterthought based on enough tribute to the nfl pillars

You’ll understand what I mean if you understand the underworld


This rule is emblematic of rules that are destroying small business in the United States and this rule, like those horrible business rules and regs have to be set aside. The result of these rules is destroying the organism that they are governing.

There needs to be a separation in the rulebook between catches made in the field of play and catches made in the endzone. A catch made in the field of play by anyone should have the same consistent application with regard to the end zone . If a receiver or running back, or quarterback, any offensive player rightfully possessing the ball, has has clear possession of the ball and breaks the plane of the goal line it is a touchdown.

Any reception made inside of the endzone by anyone rightfully entitled or allowed to make a catch has to uphold the standard of control. Inside of the endzone possession has to be maintained, feet have to be in, player cannot reenter if out of bounds. The length of time for possession could be quantified, one second. That would diminish some of the wild ass clawing and punching and violence that we see on most passes into the endzone.

On Sunday James made a clean catch and established possession. He crossed the plane with possession. By logical standards that's a TD. Under the current rules of deceit and obfuscation he fulfilled the aspects of a defined catch minus the nullification enjoinder that is in conflict and contradiction with other definitions in the rule book. The same rule book would have allowed it to have been called a catch, a fumble and a recovery in the EZ by the receiver: TD. That is the call we would have heard if that was a NE TE.

All of this aligns with logic and fairness.


Very wise and thoughout post OSS. And you see the results of the interfering rules around business being removed, a thriving increasing economy. Remove the interference, let the nature take it's rightful course.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3819
Old School Steeler wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
THe catch rule is a ruse for game manipulation

The officials cannot even interpret it by the law. Subjective afterthought based on enough tribute to the nfl pillars

You’ll understand what I mean if you understand the underworld


This rule is emblematic of rules that are destroying small business in the United States and this rule, like those horrible business rules and regs have to be set aside. The result of these rules is destroying the organism that they are governing.

There needs to be a separation in the rulebook between catches made in the field of play and catches made in the endzone. A catch made in the field of play by anyone should have the same consistent application with regard to the end zone . If a receiver or running back, or quarterback, any offensive player rightfully possessing the ball, has has clear possession of the ball and breaks the plane of the goal line it is a touchdown.

Any reception made inside of the endzone by anyone rightfully entitled or allowed to make a catch has to uphold the standard of control. Inside of the endzone possession has to be maintained, feet have to be in, player cannot reenter if out of bounds. The length of time for possession could be quantified, one second. That would diminish some of the wild ass clawing and punching and violence that we see on most passes into the endzone.

On Sunday James made a clean catch and established possession. He crossed the plane with possession. By logical standards that's a TD. Under the current rules of deceit and obfuscation he fulfilled the aspects of a defined catch minus the nullification enjoinder that is in conflict and contradiction with other definitions in the rule book. The same rule book would have allowed it to have been called a catch, a fumble and a recovery in the EZ by the receiver: TD. That is the call we would have heard if that was a NE TE.

All of this aligns with logic and fairness.


So you think it's liberals behind the current catch rules? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12102
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....

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Nick79 wrote:
Old School Steeler wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
THe catch rule is a ruse for game manipulation

The officials cannot even interpret it by the law. Subjective afterthought based on enough tribute to the nfl pillars

You’ll understand what I mean if you understand the underworld


This rule is emblematic of rules that are destroying small business in the United States and this rule, like those horrible business rules and regs have to be set aside. The result of these rules is destroying the organism that they are governing.

There needs to be a separation in the rulebook between catches made in the field of play and catches made in the endzone. A catch made in the field of play by anyone should have the same consistent application with regard to the end zone . If a receiver or running back, or quarterback, any offensive player rightfully possessing the ball, has has clear possession of the ball and breaks the plane of the goal line it is a touchdown.

Any reception made inside of the endzone by anyone rightfully entitled or allowed to make a catch has to uphold the standard of control. Inside of the endzone possession has to be maintained, feet have to be in, player cannot reenter if out of bounds. The length of time for possession could be quantified, one second. That would diminish some of the wild ass clawing and punching and violence that we see on most passes into the endzone.

On Sunday James made a clean catch and established possession. He crossed the plane with possession. By logical standards that's a TD. Under the current rules of deceit and obfuscation he fulfilled the aspects of a defined catch minus the nullification enjoinder that is in conflict and contradiction with other definitions in the rule book. The same rule book would have allowed it to have been called a catch, a fumble and a recovery in the EZ by the receiver: TD. That is the call we would have heard if that was a NE TE.

All of this aligns with logic and fairness.


So you think it's liberals behind the current catch rules? :lol:


No, i didn't mention what you did. It's simply common sense. Where you apply the common sense to a particular demographic is your dole.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
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....


The Dago is Complicit!!! :) He's pushing for new capo regime under his control :P :P

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:23 pm
Posts: 2678
If a receiver has to maintain possession throughout, t while in the EZ, why in the holy he'll can't a defender try to dislodge the ball anymore? Talking out of both sides of their mouth.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
R S wrote:
"A player must maintain control of ball through INITIAL contact of the ground........."

JJ initially contacted the ground with his knee.....then his elbow...both while maintaining control of the ball....the the ball itself contacted the ground after it crossed the plain .

Thoughts?



I agree because he caught the ball, knee was down, no contact and then made a football move (extending the ball with two hands over the goal line. Ground causing the fumble could be discussed two but after the football move/ball over the goal line, everything else should be MOOT. It was a fucking TD. Hell, there are plenty of other bullshit calls where everyone fucking knows it's a touchdown the receiver goes to the ground the ball is being juggled in the air the receiver comes down with said ball that never touched the ground yet they call it the same bullshit, didn't maintain possession while going to the ground. The ball never touches the ground......again everyone fucking knows that should be a touchdown.

Beth is spot on. NO one can convince me that there isn't bullshit involved with these calls. People pointing out the vegas spread being 3pts all week and having that TD called off is not a coincidence, it's bullshit entertainment.

Hockey is looking better and better.


I’m not buying the Vegas spread idea.

If the Vegas spread was three points all week, then the Pats didn’t cover because they only won by three.

So anyone taking the Steelers and the points cashed in whether the Pats won or the Steelers won in that situation.

Addendum: And the line kept creeping up all week...it opened at Patriots giving a point, then settled at 2.5. That must have meant the early action went to the Pats, and they ended up covering.

The over/under kept creeping up all week and settled at 53...in my mind if it was creeping up that meant a lot of early action was on the over, which didn’t happen (51 points were scored). So in that case, I could see them wanting to wipe the TD off the board if there were betting shenanigans going on (Steelers’ TD would have put the points scored at 58).

I’m not a betting man so I have no idea how Vegas benefited from a Pats’ win. Maybe someone more sophisticated can explain it.

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


Last edited by Jeemie on Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Jeemie wrote:
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
R S wrote:
"A player must maintain control of ball through INITIAL contact of the ground........."

JJ initially contacted the ground with his knee.....then his elbow...both while maintaining control of the ball....the the ball itself contacted the ground after it crossed the plain .

Thoughts?



I agree because he caught the ball, knee was down, no contact and then made a football move (extending the ball with two hands over the goal line. Ground causing the fumble could be discussed two but after the football move/ball over the goal line, everything else should be MOOT. It was a fucking TD. Hell, there are plenty of other bullshit calls where everyone fucking knows it's a touchdown the receiver goes to the ground the ball is being juggled in the air the receiver comes down with said ball that never touched the ground yet they call it the same bullshit, didn't maintain possession while going to the ground. The ball never touches the ground......again everyone fucking knows that should be a touchdown.

Beth is spot on. NO one can convince me that there isn't bullshit involved with these calls. People pointing out the vegas spread being 3pts all week and having that TD called off is not a coincidence, it's bullshit entertainment.

Hockey is looking better and better.


I’m not buying the Vegas spread idea.

If the Vegas spread was three points all week, then the Pats didn’t cover because they only won by three.

So anyone taking the Steelers and the points cashed in whether the Pats won or the Steelers won in that situation.


We don't know the outcome of the 'house' and where the money was laid. Let's see those results and discuss what Thrill said.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23693
BethlehemSteel wrote:
We don't know the outcome of the 'house' and where the money was laid. Let's see those results and discuss what Thrill said.


And where can we get that data?

We do know both the spread and the over/under trended upward all week. That to me implies early action was on the Pats and the over (both make sense given past history).

Final spread was 2.5 meaning the Pats covered. Final o/u was 53 meaning the under won.

So where can we get the data on where the big money ended up?

_________________
“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 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12102
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
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

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:50 pm
Posts: 835
The take from a Referee message board.
I just saw the replay one more time. He caught the ball and his knee hits down. That completes the catch as he had possession to the ground. Since he wasn't touched on the ground, he more or less becomes a runner. As a runner, the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, it is a touchdown. The subsequent movement of the ball or even if he dropped it, which he didn't, the only possible call, as correctly called on the field is a TOUCHDOWN. Riveron can talk all he wants about completing the process of the catch. Very bad call even if the claim the rule is the rule.

This is the site.
http://refereestats.proboards.com/threa ... 017?page=2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
That is the ultimate correct call per football rules !! This complete catch BS is what i called it, garnered wiggle room for manipulation.

We should have protested the game,. We got screwed out of 1st place and possible playoff seeding. END OF STORY

THE GAME IS FIXED!!!

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New take on the rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12102
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?

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


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 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