But I got to wreck shit at my work football game instead yeehaw
The GAME was a hardnose defensive grinder. The REFS were the problem.
I watched a lot of holding, OPI, DPI, and highly, highly questionable spots for both teams... and then theyd call these plays when it seemed like the crowd or the coaches were getting mad.
It really was like the replacement refs were back.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
Rex Ryan in the postgame bothered me when they asked about Tyrod. We all saw how horrible the dude was looking in the fourth quarter. Rex basically said "He said he was fine!" and kept him in. I never really thought of Rex as the kind of person who would allow a player, especially someone with as much potential as Taylor, to RG3 himself.
I dunno. Didn't pass the smell test.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
gronk needs to be gronk tomorrow and bring home 25 points so the buffalo can take down yorkey sax
What was the lesson again?
sigh
if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, though the buffalo will likely have a chance to make things right and knock your butt out of playoffs before I have to step in and do what should've been done long ago
only one of us is getting the playoff clinching asterisk tomorrow and i dont think it's you
gronk needs to be gronk tomorrow and bring home 25 points so the buffalo can take down yorkey sax
What was the lesson again?
sigh
if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, though the buffalo will likely have a chance to make things right and knock your butt out of playoffs before I have to step in and do what should've been done long ago
only one of us is getting the playoff clinching asterisk tomorrow and i dont think it's you
Ah, if only you had a chance to play me I'm sure you would put me in my place.
I do agree that I'll probably get bounced in the first round of the playoffs Peyton Manning style. Already preparing to throw the olinemen under the bus.
So if the pats lose it will be because the refs fixed the game? Lol
Yes.
The Patriots of New England are such a dominant force in American football that the only way they can lose a game is through nefarious, underhanded actions undertaken by their lessers.
'Some theoreticians of the comic consider exaggeration to be a universal comic device'.[15] It may take different forms in different genres, but all rely on the fact that 'the easiest way to make things laughable is to exaggerate to the point of absurdity their salient traits'.[16]
Always hard to tell with the Pats fans in here.
I'm neither pro or anti Pats. But a Pats loss would have been hilarious for the excuses.
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I haven't watched nearly as much NFL this year as I usually do. Although I'm not sure if I can pin that on the refs or just getting busier myself or the fact that most prime time games have been kind of sloppy and uninteresting.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Having suffered through most of this season, these are the refs we deserve.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
The problem: My gut is telling me the referees are more awful than they have ever been! I don't have any proof (or even any way to consistently rate this) but you can't tell me my gut is wrong! See! There is another call the refs screwed up that went against my team! I am vindicated! Confirmation bias works!
The solution: ????? Uhhhh, referees should become all-seeing and all-knowing oracles capable of precisely determining every players intents and actions at all times?
At this level, the players full well know the rules and constantly play up to and over the line of what is allowed on purpose to try to gain any fractional advantage over their opponents. Controversial calls are made because they reside deep within the grey zones of the rule book. The rule book is just basically a description of where we draw the arbitrary line in the sand, so while changing the rules might fix some issues, it doesn't fix the underlying issue about officiating. If they make the rule defining a catch more lenient, we are still going to complain about what is and isnt a catch! We still will ask "Why is X not a catch when Y over here was?"
Making the refs full time? Sure, that's probably a good idea, but it won't make things magically better. The English Premier League has full-time referees and there aren't every any controversies in England [/sarcasm].
We want the officials to call what actually happens. But the referees can only call what they see. Usually the two overlap reasonably well, sometimes they don't. It will never overlap perfectly so understand that errors by the referees can influence games just as much as errors by your quarterback or safety.
I mean absolutely it was, but it wasn't like it was a surprise. Players continue on the field when they are hurt way more often than they should, so much so that it is almost a shock when they come off the field while still conscious.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I mean absolutely it was, but it wasn't like it was a surprise. Players continue on the field when they are hurt way more often than they should, so much so that it is almost a shock when they come off the field while still conscious.
A lot of players also play it off. Tyrod was very visibly hurting, and it was his throwing arm. I dont put that onus on the young player, I put it on the coach. And if he gets RG3'd, so will everyone else.
The rules are overly complex is the core of it. With the catch conversation we had and the excessive force conversation we had (on both sides). And in the end ref ability to catch all plays. The base of how the NFL is structured is what we want as fans. But over the years there have been changes, that could be characterized as knee jerk, that have muddled the water. The megatron rule is one of them.
In the instance of the Browner incident we would want that play to be offsetting penalties on the field. Retaliation should be 15 yarder, and it is, just as much as the cheap hit. If not caught on the field it should be made up with a fine, as it was. So that situation, in the lack of properly being called on the field, resulted in a reasonable outcome of what we would want happen. As stated calls will be missed on the field. This is something that we cannot really change as "reviewing" every play is not really a thing that can be done.
For the catch issues, before the rules stated as long as you had control of the ball when you hit the ground, it never defined how long, it was a catch. This would have made the Int on Brady 2 weeks ago stand. But then we have the new through the ground interpretation that was Megatron. And instead of ruling it a mistake they changed the rule. The NFL hates to be wrong after all.
And then we have the recent "thing" in which certain situations are automatically ruled something and then reviewed. But the problem with that, as we have seen, some of the automatic rulings are wrong.
In essence they need to go back to the rulebook and simplify it down. SVP had a great post/statement after the Monday night game on this a week ago or so.
Jubal77 on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I didnt catch the MNF last week. I also heard Gruden talking about a "horribly called and officiated game on Monday night, again." Was there something bad that went down last week as well?
I didnt catch the MNF last week. I also heard Gruden talking about a "horribly called and officiated game on Monday night, again." Was there something bad that went down last week as well?
There were, i believe, three instances of the catch rule directly impacting the game. That looked to end being opposite of what the call "should" be. Other than that just the normal stuff/subjective rules. The big talking point right now is the catch rule. Edit: I think there was also an instance, or two, of those blanket calls that went the wrong way.
Jubal77 on
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Brady's int would've been ruled incomplete at least as long ago as 2009. I'm not sure why you keep harping on that
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Brady's int would've been ruled incomplete at least as long ago as 2009. I'm not sure why you keep harping on that
2010 was when the Megatron/through the ground went into affect. I am "hammering" on that because it is how I want catch rules to be. Control and elbow/two feet/knee/etc down. Edit: The megatron rule is the core of why we are discussing the catch rules right now.
Edit2: To be clear I agree with SVP on this circumstance. When a QB or RB runs with the ball there are no rules that apply there. They get instant possession of the ball. So why make it so complex for a WRs? Control of the ball and a body part (or two in regards to feet) touch the ground = catch. If they lose control after that it is a fumble. It helps defenses because a WR makes a catch easier and so all of those knock outs by Ds now become fumbles. It helps Os because now Megatron/Dez/etc instances are now catches.
Jubal77 on
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Brady's int would've been ruled incomplete at least as long ago as 2009. I'm not sure why you keep harping on that
2010 was when the Megatron/through the ground went into affect. I am "hammering" on that because it is how I want catch rules to be. Control and elbow/two feet/knee/etc down. Edit: The megatron rule is the core of why we are discussing the catch rules right now.
Rules circa Sept. 2009
Actually, I think that may be the subheading of Article 3, "Completed or Intercepted Pass," on Page 50 of the NFL rulebook. That passage also includes the so-called explanation of the noncatch on Murphy's Call.
"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."
This Byzantine blather is proceeded by an even more confusing "Note 1," known as the "going-to-the-ground" clause. The G2G states, "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball [with or without contact by a defender] must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."
The Brady interception was caught in the air. He went to ground, hit ground, lost possession, ball touched ground before he regained possession. Incomplete. There isn't really an argument here
y2jake215 on
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
+2
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
it didn't "go into effect" in 2010. it was always the rule.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
+1
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Fine you want to argue about semantics. The megatron rule changed the interpretation from what it was. Same damn thing. They then "clarified" it with additional rules.
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Ok lol so you're just wrong.
The rule clearly states why megatrons catch wasn't a catch. It was ruled correctly. You can think it's stupid but the rule is right there. No "interpretation" was changed, it was overruling similar touchdowns by Louis Murphy a year earlier
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
+1
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
All they did was say ok this is exactly when the "process of the catch" ends so there's no controversy (which obviously hasn't stopped it)
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
All they did was say ok this is exactly when the "process of the catch" ends so there's no controversy (which obviously hasn't stopped it)
Yes. Like I said clarifying. As in changing the interpretation of the rule from that moment on. Something they have done to this rule may times since then.
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
I honestly don't give a shit about that megatron catch, so I'm not going to repeat what the entire world has said.
My point is
before the rules stated as long as you had control of the ball when you hit the ground, it never defined how long, it was a catch. This would have made the Int on Brady 2 weeks ago stand.
is just wrong. It's misinformed and incorrect, and literally isn't up for debate
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
You're arguing for bringing back a rule that never existed. You're just wrong
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
The problem: My gut is telling me the referees are more awful than they have ever been! I don't have any proof (or even any way to consistently rate this) but you can't tell me my gut is wrong! See! There is another call the refs screwed up that went against my team! I am vindicated! Confirmation bias works!
The solution: ????? Uhhhh, referees should become all-seeing and all-knowing oracles capable of precisely determining every players intents and actions at all times?
At this level, the players full well know the rules and constantly play up to and over the line of what is allowed on purpose to try to gain any fractional advantage over their opponents. Controversial calls are made because they reside deep within the grey zones of the rule book. The rule book is just basically a description of where we draw the arbitrary line in the sand, so while changing the rules might fix some issues, it doesn't fix the underlying issue about officiating. If they make the rule defining a catch more lenient, we are still going to complain about what is and isnt a catch! We still will ask "Why is X not a catch when Y over here was?"
Making the refs full time? Sure, that's probably a good idea, but it won't make things magically better. The English Premier League has full-time referees and there aren't every any controversies in England [/sarcasm].
We want the officials to call what actually happens. But the referees can only call what they see. Usually the two overlap reasonably well, sometimes they don't. It will never overlap perfectly so understand that errors by the referees can influence games just as much as errors by your quarterback or safety.
Well. There was the blown whistle when Rex crossed the line judge. And the last play. Those weren't really rules issues - just weird line judge calls.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I honestly don't give a shit about that megatron catch, so I'm not going to repeat what the entire world has said.
My point is
before the rules stated as long as you had control of the ball when you hit the ground, it never defined how long, it was a catch. This would have made the Int on Brady 2 weeks ago stand.
is just wrong. It's misinformed and incorrect, and literally isn't up for debate
Look I know you are mad because I dared mention the Pats so fine. It wasn't an Int. That one. There was another that, if I remember, that was more grey so ill just switch to that one. But then again that wasn't even the point of my statement so I will just leave this discussion as a wild tangent and dare not mention a pats player because man the barking is loud.
Posts
Glad to get a W
But I got to wreck shit at my work football game instead yeehaw
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
What was the lesson again?
The GAME was a hardnose defensive grinder. The REFS were the problem.
I watched a lot of holding, OPI, DPI, and highly, highly questionable spots for both teams... and then theyd call these plays when it seemed like the crowd or the coaches were getting mad.
It really was like the replacement refs were back.
I dunno. Didn't pass the smell test.
Ahem
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
sigh
if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself, though the buffalo will likely have a chance to make things right and knock your butt out of playoffs before I have to step in and do what should've been done long ago
only one of us is getting the playoff clinching asterisk tomorrow and i dont think it's you
Ah, if only you had a chance to play me I'm sure you would put me in my place.
The Patriots have fallen to second in points for this season.
On the bright side, the Patriots are now best in the NFL in points against.
Always hard to tell with the Pats fans in here.
I'm neither pro or anti Pats. But a Pats loss would have been hilarious for the excuses.
4 touches? 6 touches? Hardly a Jonas Gray performance.
Will you stop watching?
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
The solution: ????? Uhhhh, referees should become all-seeing and all-knowing oracles capable of precisely determining every players intents and actions at all times?
At this level, the players full well know the rules and constantly play up to and over the line of what is allowed on purpose to try to gain any fractional advantage over their opponents. Controversial calls are made because they reside deep within the grey zones of the rule book. The rule book is just basically a description of where we draw the arbitrary line in the sand, so while changing the rules might fix some issues, it doesn't fix the underlying issue about officiating. If they make the rule defining a catch more lenient, we are still going to complain about what is and isnt a catch! We still will ask "Why is X not a catch when Y over here was?"
Making the refs full time? Sure, that's probably a good idea, but it won't make things magically better. The English Premier League has full-time referees and there aren't every any controversies in England [/sarcasm].
We want the officials to call what actually happens. But the referees can only call what they see. Usually the two overlap reasonably well, sometimes they don't. It will never overlap perfectly so understand that errors by the referees can influence games just as much as errors by your quarterback or safety.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
You buttface I hate you
Also I will be straight up maudlin if Amendola is seriously hurt
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
The out-of-bounds-when-he-clearly wasnt?
It definitely was.
A lot of players also play it off. Tyrod was very visibly hurting, and it was his throwing arm. I dont put that onus on the young player, I put it on the coach. And if he gets RG3'd, so will everyone else.
In the instance of the Browner incident we would want that play to be offsetting penalties on the field. Retaliation should be 15 yarder, and it is, just as much as the cheap hit. If not caught on the field it should be made up with a fine, as it was. So that situation, in the lack of properly being called on the field, resulted in a reasonable outcome of what we would want happen. As stated calls will be missed on the field. This is something that we cannot really change as "reviewing" every play is not really a thing that can be done.
For the catch issues, before the rules stated as long as you had control of the ball when you hit the ground, it never defined how long, it was a catch. This would have made the Int on Brady 2 weeks ago stand. But then we have the new through the ground interpretation that was Megatron. And instead of ruling it a mistake they changed the rule. The NFL hates to be wrong after all.
And then we have the recent "thing" in which certain situations are automatically ruled something and then reviewed. But the problem with that, as we have seen, some of the automatic rulings are wrong.
In essence they need to go back to the rulebook and simplify it down. SVP had a great post/statement after the Monday night game on this a week ago or so.
I didnt catch the MNF last week. I also heard Gruden talking about a "horribly called and officiated game on Monday night, again." Was there something bad that went down last week as well?
There were, i believe, three instances of the catch rule directly impacting the game. That looked to end being opposite of what the call "should" be. Other than that just the normal stuff/subjective rules. The big talking point right now is the catch rule. Edit: I think there was also an instance, or two, of those blanket calls that went the wrong way.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
2010 was when the Megatron/through the ground went into affect. I am "hammering" on that because it is how I want catch rules to be. Control and elbow/two feet/knee/etc down. Edit: The megatron rule is the core of why we are discussing the catch rules right now.
Edit2: To be clear I agree with SVP on this circumstance. When a QB or RB runs with the ball there are no rules that apply there. They get instant possession of the ball. So why make it so complex for a WRs? Control of the ball and a body part (or two in regards to feet) touch the ground = catch. If they lose control after that it is a fumble. It helps defenses because a WR makes a catch easier and so all of those knock outs by Ds now become fumbles. It helps Os because now Megatron/Dez/etc instances are now catches.
Rules circa Sept. 2009
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/090923
The Brady interception was caught in the air. He went to ground, hit ground, lost possession, ball touched ground before he regained possession. Incomplete. There isn't really an argument here
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
oh no you do know why
The rule clearly states why megatrons catch wasn't a catch. It was ruled correctly. You can think it's stupid but the rule is right there. No "interpretation" was changed, it was overruling similar touchdowns by Louis Murphy a year earlier
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Yes. Like I said clarifying. As in changing the interpretation of the rule from that moment on. Something they have done to this rule may times since then.
My point is
is just wrong. It's misinformed and incorrect, and literally isn't up for debate
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Well. There was the blown whistle when Rex crossed the line judge. And the last play. Those weren't really rules issues - just weird line judge calls.
though i assume that means he's likely out for the denver game
make sure you have plenty of kleenex, defensive football fans, because this one is going to be your game of the year
Look I know you are mad because I dared mention the Pats so fine. It wasn't an Int. That one. There was another that, if I remember, that was more grey so ill just switch to that one. But then again that wasn't even the point of my statement so I will just leave this discussion as a wild tangent and dare not mention a pats player because man the barking is loud.