It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:20 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:52 pm
Posts: 7291
Soon as I saw the first replay, knew we were getting fucked!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 9097
swissvale72 wrote:
Soon as I saw the first replay, knew we were getting fucked!!




yup


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4426
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:48 pm
Posts: 691
Still Lit wrote:

Not true. I very likely would have dropped the pass.


:lol: :lol: - probably most of us as well


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23270
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


There’s not zippo evidence.

Ball touched the ground...ball moved...you can see James did not maintain control of it.

You’re arguing with homer glasses because you want it to be an example of Refs’ favoritism to the Pats.

_________________
“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: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9672
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


There’s not zippo evidence.

Ball touched the ground...ball moved...you can see James did not maintain control of it.

You’re arguing with homer glasses because you want it to be an example of Refs’ favoritism to the Pats.


Isn't the argument that a pinky could have been under the ball? You don't have x ray vision so how can you know? This thread is on spin cycle.

Of course the ball hit the ground.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4426
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


There’s not zippo evidence.

Ball touched the ground...ball moved...you can see James did not maintain control of it.

You’re arguing with homer glasses because you want it to be an example of Refs’ favoritism to the Pats.


If you don't recall the Bert Emmanuel rule, the ball can move if you have control of it

And no, I could care less about how this play impacted the Pats, the Jets or some other fucking franchise. My point remains is that they applied a standard to this play that went against what their own guildelines were

Lock 10 lawyers in a room, give them the letter of the law and the video evidence and I promise you all 10 do not come to the same conclusion.
That's what's defined as "indisputable"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 3977
Image

This is why you can't rely on still images. From this angle, James looks like the ball rolled from his left hand onto his right hand. It also looks like there are enough fingers under the ball to have secured the catch.

A still image at a millisecond point in time isn't going to give you conclusive evidence unless his fingers are off the ball and it is touching grass. Therefore, you only have video to go by. The video is inconclusive because his forearm blocks the view of the ball.

I honestly have nothing to gain by taking this position. It's not like you guys are a bunch of Pats fans and I'm trying to prove a point to you. I honestly to this day cannot tell from the video whether that ball conclusively touched the ground. I honestly really can't. Therefore, in my opinion, the call should have stood.

But, we have to move on and just disagree. If we beat this horse any more, there will be no carcass left.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:55 pm
Posts: 684
Donnie Brasco wrote:
If you don't recall the Bert Emmanuel rule, the ball can move if you have control of it

And no, I could care less about how this play impacted the Pats, the Jets or some other fucking franchise. My point remains is that they applied a standard to this play that went against what their own guildelines were

Lock 10 lawyers in a room, give them the letter of the law and the video evidence and I promise you all 10 do not come to the same conclusion.
That's what's defined as "indisputable"

Actually the Corey Clement TD catch showed the application of that rule as well. On Inside the NFL they had a mike on the ref and he said the ball moved but Clement had control.

As the hosts discussed both contested Iggles TDs they all seemed to agree that different standrds were applied in that game than during the regular season. IMO the reason is because this year Riveron started from scratch on each play rather than apply the “indisputable evidence” rule. That is also why his reviews took so damn long.

I’m hoping that the directive came down from the league to go back to indisputable rather than “What do I think it should be.” My preference would be to put a one minute clock on the replays - if you can decide that quickly then it isn’t indisputable and the call stands. They simply have to fix the issue of never knowing whether a TD is a TD or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:10 am
Posts: 967
Poltargyst wrote:
Jobus Rum wrote:
Jackie Chiles wrote:
Get rid of replay and call it on the field.

This cannot be said enough.

This cannot be argued with enough. As Jeemie said, there should be replay for the most egregious of errors, we just need to get rid of the nit picking.

If they want replay it must be done real time and only have 30 seconds to do it. No super slow motion and lengthy review time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6330
franco32 wrote:
Image

This is why you can't rely on still images. From this angle, James looks like the ball rolled from his left hand onto his right hand. It also looks like there are enough fingers under the ball to have secured the catch.

A still image at a millisecond point in time isn't going to give you conclusive evidence unless his fingers are off the ball and it is touching grass. Therefore, you only have video to go by. The video is inconclusive because his forearm blocks the view of the ball.

I honestly have nothing to gain by taking this position. It's not like you guys are a bunch of Pats fans and I'm trying to prove a point to you. I honestly to this day cannot tell from the video whether that ball conclusively touched the ground. I honestly really can't. Therefore, in my opinion, the call should have stood.

But, we have to move on and just disagree. If we beat this horse any more, there will be no carcass left.
I think I agree with you, but nobody cares if there is a carcass left. The beating will continue. Like any Harrison thread.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Rooney says call on field was correct, but with the rule lies the problem

The catch rule needs to be changed


Quote:
”Look, I think the Jesse James play was actually called the right way,” Rooney said, via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “That’s the way the rule reads, but I don’t think that should be the rule. I think that he had possession of that ball, reached into the end zone and had possession when he was reaching in. If he were a running back, that would have been a touchdown. Just having consistency in the way plays are officiated like that, I think we have room to improve it.”

There’s a consensus around the league that the catch rule needs to be changed. Add the Steelers to the list of teams that will vote for a rule change this offseason.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 13532
Jeemie wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
The simple fact that James made a football move by diving [after taking a step] over the goal line was indisputable. Once the Goal line is broken..., Touchdown Period! Debate all you want. Exercise in futility, Dilly Dilly....


The...refs...have...never...ruled...what...James...did...to...be...a...football...move.

Never...ever.

Prior...precedent.

I know you're into debating to pump up your post count so I'll only say this one more time. James' football more was the step towards the goal line, the stretch over the goal line, the Football Breaking The Plane of the Goal line before going to the ground Untocuched. Touch down. Carry on....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch was a TD as was Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3765
bam morris wrote:
maybe that play in super bowl will make nfl fix the fucking rule...most likely not

This thread shows what is wrong with the NFL!

I'll instantly fix the fucking "What is a Catch" rule...

A catch is a non-reviewable judgment call...... PERIOD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Still Lit wrote:
Will-the-Shake wrote:
Whatever side one falls on the Jesse James catch/no catch debate, I think it’s pretty clear that the call would have stood has it occurred in the Super Bowl. NFL didn’t want anything offensively successful that looked like a clear touchdown to millions of people, and was called a touchdown on the field, micromanaged into a reversal, rewarding a defense that had failed on the play. I think the first of the two eagles touchdowns that went to review demonstrates this more than the second, where multiple steps were taken and a reversal would have been a travesty.


James did nothing like take multiple steps. Not even close. I still think posters thinking the reversal was obviously flawed are delusional.

If only the fucker had tucked and rolled.


Don’t be full of shit. Earlier in this thread you said there were many reasons to overturn and not overturn. You said it wasn’t a slam dunk. Now you are saying those arguing it shouldn’t be overturned are delusional?

It appears you are the delusional one. Put another way, you said it was ambiguous yet you still think it is delusional to be upset that an ambiguous was overturned?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Jeemie wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
The simple fact that James made a football move by diving [after taking a step] over the goal line was indisputable. Once the Goal line is broken..., Touchdown Period! Debate all you want. Exercise in futility, Dilly Dilly....


The...refs...have...never...ruled...what...James...did...to...be...a...football...move.

Never...ever.

Prior...precedent.


We’ve been over this before and you admitting that there is no direct precedent on point. All of the other cases can be distinguished.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Jackie Chiles wrote:
TB wrote:
No it wouldn't. As long as the player survived the initial contact with the ground he would have completed the catch at that point and would have possession.

Wherever he ended up being touched down as he barrel rolled, or was head standing his way to the end zone is where he would be down.

Yes... Plain simple easy.


But that’s the point. I guess you are saying he completed the catch after the first barrel roll. Thus, a subsequent barrel roll would be a football move. You can argue James didn’t commit a separate barrel roll, but that’s a different argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
TB wrote:
I'm planting my flag in the ground, you guys are 100% wrong.

If you're making a catch, you're doing one of two things:

1) You're upright long enough to be considered a runner with possession of the ball
2) You're what is considered "going to the ground" when attempting to make the catch if you're not upright long enough to be considered a runner and are going to the ground, whether you are contacted or just going to the ground on your own

This whole barrel roll scenario I've already addressed. But I'll spell it out again:

If you are upright long enough to be considered a runner (two steps on the ground, making what we call a "football" move by tucking, turning upfield, warding off a defender) and then go down to make a barrel roll, you can roll on the ground all damn day until you're touched down or score. You have completed the pass and are in possession of the ball as you're rolling.

If you are going to the ground while making a catch, whether touched or untouched, if you control the ball through the initial contact with the ground, you can barrel roll just the same and it's a catch with possession. You show clear control through the initial contact with the ground, you're doing a few barrel rolls, and then lose control of the ball? Either way it's complete, then we'd be looking at a fumble if you at some point during your 100 barrel rolls you lost control of the ball. But if you're going to the ground, lose control of the ball and it makes contact with the ground during that initial contact and initial barrel roll attempt? And you don't regain control of the ball until after it has already hit the ground? Then it's incomplete.

That's what this whole "survive the ground" thing is coming from. You have to "survive" with control of the ball through the initial contact with the ground when you're a player that's going to the ground when making the attempted catch. If you do that, and then start barrel rolling towards the end zone? You're good. You've completed the catch, have possession, do whatever the hell you want at that point. You can go to the ground and in the process be attempting to make a head stand, if you control the ball through the initial contact with the ground and start head standing your way towards the end zone? You're good.

Again, James did none of these. He didn't have any feet on the ground when he was making the catch, was falling to the ground untouched. By rule, he is a "player going to the ground." The idea that he is a "runner" just because as he's falling to the ground he reaches out with the ball towards the goal line is not supported by anything in the rulebook other than you misinterpreting their wording. It's clear from there that if they determined he lost control with the ball contacting the ground before he regained control, then it's incomplete. End of story.


I think we are agreeing on the rule but disagreeing on the facts. I would say that James’ initial contact was with a knee. At this point, he tucked the ball. He then pushed off that knee, changed direction and extended the ball. In the rules, going up field or extending the ball is sufficient to complete the first catch.

Now, perhaps it is possible to argue the above wer to subtle and thus not enough to establish completion of the catch. But that is a subjective fact that must be overturned by indisputable evidence. I think factually murky enough not to be indisputable. His wasn’t de novo review.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23270
Zeke5123 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
The simple fact that James made a football move by diving [after taking a step] over the goal line was indisputable. Once the Goal line is broken..., Touchdown Period! Debate all you want. Exercise in futility, Dilly Dilly....


The...refs...have...never...ruled...what...James...did...to...be...a...football...move.

Never...ever.

Prior...precedent.


We’ve been over this before and you admitting that there is no direct precedent on point. All of the other cases can be distinguished.


Yes but there's never direct precedent for practically anything.

They considered what James did all one act and not like barrel rolls. It did happen all in one fluid motion.

I agree they shouldn't have done so but knew they would do so.

_________________
“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: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3142
If the James play had happened in the EZ it would have been a TD. They have ruled that way several times. Once it is secured and the player is down it is a TD.

and it is why they need to change the rule. No one knows what a catch is.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23270
jebrick wrote:
If the James play had happened in the EZ it would have been a TD. They have ruled that way several times. Once it is secured and the player is down it is a TD.

and it is why they need to change the rule. No one knows what a catch is.


When have they ruled it that way before?

I don't recall that.

_________________
“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: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3142
Jeemie wrote:
jebrick wrote:
If the James play had happened in the EZ it would have been a TD. They have ruled that way several times. Once it is secured and the player is down it is a TD.

and it is why they need to change the rule. No one knows what a catch is.


When have they ruled it that way before?

I don't recall that.


I can dig it up but there have been several. Cook's catch in the EZ where he then falls OOB and bobbles the ball. ODB catch where he get the ball knocked from his hands just after getting the 2nd foot down. There was a GBv Dallas game where the WR goes up and gets the ball, comes down on 2 feet then gets the ball knocked away. All TDs. all controversial.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9672
Zeke5123 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Will-the-Shake wrote:
Whatever side one falls on the Jesse James catch/no catch debate, I think it’s pretty clear that the call would have stood has it occurred in the Super Bowl. NFL didn’t want anything offensively successful that looked like a clear touchdown to millions of people, and was called a touchdown on the field, micromanaged into a reversal, rewarding a defense that had failed on the play. I think the first of the two eagles touchdowns that went to review demonstrates this more than the second, where multiple steps were taken and a reversal would have been a travesty.


James did nothing like take multiple steps. Not even close. I still think posters thinking the reversal was obviously flawed are delusional.

If only the fucker had tucked and rolled.


Don’t be full of shit. Earlier in this thread you said there were many reasons to overturn and not overturn. You said it wasn’t a slam dunk. Now you are saying those arguing it shouldn’t be overturned are delusional?

It appears you are the delusional one. Put another way, you said it was ambiguous yet you still think it is delusional to be upset that an ambiguous was overturned?


No, I think others are delusional who think the catch was OBVIOUSLY not "overturnable." My personal opinion is that it's obvious it was a non-catch according to the rules. But I can see the plausibility of other arguments.

What's the point of posting if you can't be full of shit? You're sucking the fun out of board membership.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6330
Still Lit wrote:
What's the point of posting if you can't be full of shit? You're sucking the fun out of board membership.
Wasn't there a box to check when signing up to steeler fury?

[ ] Full of Shit
[ ] Not Full of Shit*

*Clicking Not Full of Shit may affect acceptance of membership.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Still Lit wrote:
No, I think others are delusional who think the catch was OBVIOUSLY not "overturnable." My personal opinion is that it's obvious it was a non-catch according to the rules. But I can see the plausibility of other arguments.

What's the point of posting if you can't be full of shit? You're sucking the fun out of board membership.


Let's try to pin your argument. Do you think the argument turns on a reading of the rule, or application of the facts? Said another way, do you think the rule is clear and the only question is whether James did enough to become a runner, or do you think the rule is unclear and the facts are clear?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 22 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