It is currently Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:11 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
BethlehemSteel wrote:
That's the total proof when the ball slid down to ground and his left moved up, the right hand was always under it.

NFL sucks and I will say it until i turn off the TV after Ben hangs it up.


His right hand was not always under it. He dropped the ball. They ultimately got the call wrong on the field and right upon review.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
fortythree wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
That's the total proof when the ball slid down to ground and his left moved up, the right hand was always under it.

NFL sucks and I will say it until i turn off the TV after Ben hangs it up.


His right hand was not always under it. He dropped the ball. They ultimately got the call wrong on the field and right upon review.


Show me, if you can't, take back your assumption.

We have pics showing the hand always under

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
BethlehemSteel wrote:
fortythree wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
That's the total proof when the ball slid down to ground and his left moved up, the right hand was always under it.

NFL sucks and I will say it until i turn off the TV after Ben hangs it up.


His right hand was not always under it. He dropped the ball. They ultimately got the call wrong on the field and right upon review.


Show me, if you can't, take back your assumption.

We have pics showing the hand always under


Image

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
That picture show three fingers are not under the ball.

The human hand has five fingers.

Even the Simpsons' cartoon hand has four.

Again, this is not conclusive proof.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23662
BethlehemSteel wrote:
fortythree wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
That's the total proof when the ball slid down to ground and his left moved up, the right hand was always under it.

NFL sucks and I will say it until i turn off the TV after Ben hangs it up.


His right hand was not always under it. He dropped the ball. They ultimately got the call wrong on the field and right upon review.


Show me, if you can't, take back your assumption.

We have pics showing the hand always under


By definition, still pictures cannot show “always” since they are static, not dynamic.

_________________
“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: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 3416
Location: Upstate NY
franco32 wrote:
The photo earlier in the thread looks like the ball may have hit the ground, but you cannot conclusively say his fingers weren't under the ball as it rolled up his right hand. This photo was snapped milliseconds later and it shows his fingers under the ball as his left arm rolls over the top of it.

Image

I really question people's understanding of the definition of "conclusive". It means irrefutable. I have yet to see clear and irrefutable evidence that his fingers weren't under the ball. Now, if video didn't show it and the stills even raise that question, there is no way in hell under NFL rules you can reverse the call on the field. No way.

What Riveron and some others on here have done is ASSUME that because the ball turned as his elbows hit that it must have hit the ground. That is an assumption and not a conclusion. I'm glad the Steelers "moved on" from the call and are pissed. But, we can't ignore the real problem here. The NFL is ignoring its own standard on conclusive evidence and it's helped the Patriots a ton this season.



The ball moving makes his fingers under the ball a moot point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
JackSplat58 wrote:
That picture show three fingers are not under the ball.

The human hand has five fingers.

Even the Simpsons' cartoon hand has four.

Again, this is not conclusive proof.


Lol you're reaching. Unless the dude's pinky and ring finger are freakishly large he doesn't have control of the ball.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
JackSplat58 wrote:
That picture show three fingers are not under the ball.

The human hand has five fingers.

Even the Simpsons' cartoon hand has four.

Again, this is not conclusive proof.


Exactly. 43 always pushing a narrative. The point of this exercise is they didn't have conclusive proof to overturn the call on the field.

We should be 13-2 right now

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
fortythree wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
That picture show three fingers are not under the ball.

The human hand has five fingers.

Even the Simpsons' cartoon hand has four.

Again, this is not conclusive proof.


Lol you're reaching. Unless the dude's pinky and ring finger are freakishly large he doesn't have control of the ball.


No, actually you're reaching. The burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence. This is not INDISPUTABLE. It may be possible, maybe even likely, but does not satisfy the letter of the law.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
JackSplat58 wrote:
fortythree wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
That picture show three fingers are not under the ball.

The human hand has five fingers.

Even the Simpsons' cartoon hand has four.

Again, this is not conclusive proof.


Lol you're reaching. Unless the dude's pinky and ring finger are freakishly large he doesn't have control of the ball.[/qu4ote]

No, actually you're reaching. The burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence. This is not INDISPUTABLE. It may be possible, maybe even likely, but does not satisfy the letter of the law.


Lol

1.) I don't deny that on the tv replays you don't have indisputable evidence.

2.) That picture clearly shows he doesn't have control. You can cling to the whole "two fingers" theory but only the most delusional of people would think that should count. Especially when you consider how his hand is contorted. There is no way he has any meaningful control of the ball with his pinky and ring finger.

3.) The way he realizes that he dropped it and then quickly reaches to pick the ball up to try and fool the officials should say something too.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
BethlehemSteel wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
That picture show three fingers are not under the ball.

The human hand has five fingers.

Even the Simpsons' cartoon hand has four.

Again, this is not conclusive proof.


Exactly. 43 always pushing a narrative. The point of this exercise is they didn't have conclusive proof to overturn the call on the field.

We should be 13-2 right now


I never said they had conclusive proof on the replay.

I just said they ended up getting the call right.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 4231
43

Even the pic you posted is inconclusive because you can't see the ring and pinky fingers. You are guessing they weren't underneath the ball. The only way for it to be conclusive would be to have a shot from the side angle a few milliseconds before the pic I posted. Then you could see for sure if his fingers were under the ball. Remember, conclusive means irrefutable (ie. 100% sure). That is the standard to overturn.

The very fact that we are using additional tools from photographers to try to decipher this more than a week later shows just how inconclusive it was. Riveron had to essentially GUESS and ASSUME the ball hit the ground because it moved.

I have a big problem with that, but right now there is nothing we can do. The Steelers are livid and playing with a chip on their shoulder. That's a good thing for all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 555
fortythree wrote:
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.


He definitely had possession outside the end zone when he caught the ball and became a runner though, even his knee was down before the goal line as he brought it into his chest BEFORE he reached for a touchdown as a RUNNER.

The NFL has this all wrong by their own definition of a completion.

Fuckface Riveron even says the word “COMPLETION” in his dumb attempt to clear things up


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
ChippedHamSandwich wrote:
fortythree wrote:
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.


He definitely had possession outside the end zone when he caught the ball and became a runner though, even his knee was down before the goal line as he brought it into his chest BEFORE he reached for a touchdown as a RUNNER.

The NFL has this all wrong by their own definition of a completion.

Fuckface Riveron even says the word “COMPLETION” in his dumb attempt to clear things up



He did not become a runner. He was falling down and has to maintain possession the entire way. He doesnt.

That's an incompletion anywhere on the field.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23662
ChippedHamSandwich wrote:
fortythree wrote:
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.


He definitely had possession outside the end zone when he caught the ball and became a runner though, even his knee was down before the goal line as he brought it into his chest BEFORE he reached for a touchdown as a RUNNER.

The NFL has this all wrong by their own definition of a completion.

Fuckface Riveron even says the word “COMPLETION” in his dumb attempt to clear things up


Unfortunately, the NFL has never defined making a move with the football (stretching out, etc) as something that establishes a receiver as a runner.

_________________
“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: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
fortythree wrote:
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.


Sure it does. If his finger (even his pinky) is underneath the ball he maintains possession.

You are stating that it's your opinion that he lost possession of the ball. It may even be mine.

But it is NOT CONCLUSIVE. It's conjecture. And that is NOT the letter of the law.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
JackSplat58 wrote:
fortythree wrote:
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.


Sure it does. If his finger (even his pinky) is underneath the ball he maintains possession.


Lol that's not how it works.

Quote:
You are stating that it's your opinion that he lost possession of the ball. It may even be mine.

But it is NOT CONCLUSIVE. It's conjecture. And that is NOT the letter of the law.


Doesn't get any more conclusive than the pic I posted of the ball laying on the fucking ground, my dude.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
fortythree wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
fortythree wrote:
It doesn't matter if his ring and pinky fingers were underneath the ball because there is no way he has control of the ball in that situation.

And I'm not arguing that there is conclusive evidence on the replay. I just can't get too upset because he did drop it.

Ben threw him a perfect pass to score a TD with and he blew it.


Sure it does. If his finger (even his pinky) is underneath the ball he maintains possession.


Lol that's not how it works.

Sure is.

Quote:
You are stating that it's your opinion that he lost possession of the ball. It may even be mine.

But it is NOT CONCLUSIVE. It's conjecture. And that is NOT the letter of the law.


Doesn't get any more conclusive than the pic I posted of the ball laying on the fucking ground, my dude.


If he has a finger under the ball, it's not lying on the ground.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
JackSplat58 wrote:

If he has a finger under the ball, it's not lying on the ground.


Sure it is. But he also has to have control. And he doesnt. Which is obvious to anyone looking at the picture I posted who isn't looking for excuses.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 337
Jeemie wrote:

Unfortunately, the NFL has never defined making a move with the football (stretching out, etc) as something that establishes a receiver as a runner.


But it did,
Quote:
A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps


If extending the ball is not turning upfield, then the rules are not written in English - and do note that a move with the football (ie tucking it away) is mentioned. The NFL has a rule already written to handle the James catch, they just choose not to use it. The player only needs to accomplish one of the above, James did tuck the ball away, and turned upfield to stretch it to the goaline. It's far easier for the NFL to solve these matters by applying the above rule and utilizing the "going to the ground' for instances where a player makes a catch while diving or falling and does not satisfy the runner provision above - as was originally intended.

Remember, the rule above says "second foot", but one knee does equal two feet according to the first part of the rule (not quoted here).

To be honest - for me there is no reason to argue the fingers or did he control through the ground - the proper ruling should have been that James became a runner as he satisfied all the items on the list to do so. The NFL doesn't need to rewrite anything - they just need to read their own rule and apply it... of course that might hurt the Patriots in such situations which is why I doubt they will do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
JackSplat58 wrote:
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.


The picture combined with watching the replay and seeing the ball around after hitting the ground is indisputable proof that he dropped the fucking ball.

Just because you're gonna go all Climate Change denier and act like having your two weak fingers trapped under a ball that is laying on the ground is equal to control doesn't mean it's actually disputable.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2442
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
Jeemie wrote:

Unfortunately, the NFL has never defined making a move with the football (stretching out, etc) as something that establishes a receiver as a runner.


But it did,
Quote:
A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps


If extending the ball is not turning upfield, then the rules are not written in English - and do note that a move with the football (ie tucking it away) is mentioned. The NFL has a rule already written to handle the James catch, they just choose not to use it. The player only needs to accomplish one of the above, James did tuck the ball away, and turned upfield to stretch it to the goaline. It's far easier for the NFL to solve these matters by applying the above rule and utilizing the "going to the ground' for instances where a player makes a catch while diving or falling and does not satisfy the runner provision above - as was originally intended.

Remember, the rule above says "second foot", but one knee does equal two feet according to the first part of the rule (not quoted here).

To be honest - for me there is no reason to argue the fingers or did he control through the ground - the proper ruling should have been that James became a runner as he satisfied all the items on the list to do so. The NFL doesn't need to rewrite anything - they just need to read their own rule and apply it... of course that might hurt the Patriots in such situations which is why I doubt they will do so.


Doesn't apply because he's falling to the ground. If he took two steps and remained upright you might have an argument.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
fortythree wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.


The picture combined with watching the replay and seeing the ball around after hitting the ground is indisputable proof that he dropped the fucking ball.

Just because you're gonna go all Climate Change denier and act like having your two weak fingers trapped under a ball that is laying on the ground is equal to control doesn't mean it's actually disputable.


I can control a football with my pinky and fourth finger perfectly fine. I can't speak for Jesse James. And neither can you.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BarryFoster, fractalsteel, Google [Bot], Havoc, Hinestuff, Ice, Jobus Rum, Kodiak, RooneyTunes, Steel Reign, Steeledge, StillerDownSouth, the-other-burg and 43 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