realitycheck Show full post »
dawgstyle
hodor64 wrote:
dawgstyle wrote:
bhsblackhawks wrote:
Dawg, I feel like we're having the same debate we used to have with WR_88 about the college football playoffs. He used to argue that we should keep the BCS based on the fact that the playoff system isn't perfect. Sure, the playoff has flaws, but why would you want a system that's more flawed than the playoff?

I feel like you're arguing we should change the rule strictly because it has shown the ability to be wrong once every 4 years, even though it appears to me that every alternative rule would cause even more issue. It's the same concept. Sure, the Calvin Johnson Rule has flaws, but unless you have a better alternative, it's idiotic to change the rule (sorry WR_88, but I think the playoff this year proved that the BCS was idiotic).


Why is it I don't remember there being anything as controversial as this when it comes to a "catch" prior to The Calvin Johnson catch. Don't pretend there isn't another option, because the forward pass has been in the league for over 100 years and I don't recall anything like this prior to that play.


I can think of 2:

Bert Emmanuel NFC Championship 1999 / Troy Polamala AFC Divisional game 2006. Both where huge plays that had giant impacts on the game. If Emmanuel's catch is complete, the Bucs beat the Rams and Kurt Warner doesn't have a ring. Polamala's interception would have ended the game, and the reason that it didn't get so much attention is that in a crazy series of events at the end of the game, the Steelers ended up winning.

Both were ruled incomplete as it was found that the player lost control over the ball before making a "football move."


I don't remember the TP play. Wasn't the Emmanuel play the one that changed the entire, a ball can touch the ground as long as they have control? Or are we talking about different plays?
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
hodor64
I believe you are correct. That after that play the competition committee reviewed the rule and came up with the "act common to the game" language. If I recall, the play was quite similar in facts to the Bryant catch. Emmanuel took possession, turned into the defender and was tackled to the ground, and when he hit the ground the ball came loose. They ruled incomplete pass. Herm Edwards brought it up post game on Sunday, which is what made me think of it.

If you went crazy over the Dez Bryant play, then you need to look back at the Polamala play. He catches the ball, goes to the ground without getting touched. Gets up and knocks the ball out with his own his knee, he immediately falls on the ball. Steelers are celebrating because the game is over, then the officials confer and go to replay. Ruling is reversed, incomplete pass.

Again, because of the crazy way that game ended (Bettis goalline fumble, Rothlebergers one arm tackle of the DB from the Colts, who had just been stabbed by his girlfriend, Vinaterris missed FG) it was less memorable, but Joey Porter had a lot to say after the game about the NFL fixing games.
Some hero's wear capes, others just hold the door!
RIP: Wyllis
Quote 0 0
bhsblackhawks
Dawg, I feel like we're having the same debate we used to have with WR_88 about the college football playoffs. He used to argue that we should keep the BCS based on the fact that the playoff system isn't perfect. Sure, the playoff has flaws, but why would you want a system that's more flawed than the playoff?

I feel like you're arguing we should change the rule strictly because it has shown the ability to be wrong once every 4 years, even though it appears to me that every alternative rule would cause even more issue. It's the same concept. Sure, the Calvin Johnson Rule has flaws, but unless you have a better alternative, it's idiotic to change the rule (sorry WR_88, but I think the playoff this year proved that the BCS was idiotic).
Quote 0 0
dawgstyle
hodor64 wrote:
I believe you are correct. That after that play the competition committee reviewed the rule and came up with the "act common to the game" language. If I recall, the play was quite similar in facts to the Bryant catch. Emmanuel took possession, turned into the defender and was tackled to the ground, and when he hit the ground the ball came loose. They ruled incomplete pass. Herm Edwards brought it up post game on Sunday, which is what made me think of it.

If you went crazy over the Dez Bryant play, then you need to look back at the Polamala play. He catches the ball, goes to the ground without getting touched. Gets up and knocks the ball out with his own his knee, he immediately falls on the ball. Steelers are celebrating because the game is over, then the officials confer and go to replay. Ruling is reversed, incomplete pass.

Again, because of the crazy way that game ended (Bettis goalline fumble, Rothlebergers one arm tackle of the DB from the Colts, who had just been stabbed by his girlfriend, Vinaterris missed FG) it was less memorable, but Joey Porter had a lot to say after the game about the NFL fixing games.


I will have to check it out after work.
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
buzzerbeater2
I think the big thing lost in all of this is that McCarthy won a challenge! And I'm glad he did, because as soon as the ball was not in the grasp of Bryant's two hands, cries of "Throw the red flag!" arose in the household of the buzzerbeater. The spirit of the rule is bitter, but the letter of the law was sweet to the green and gold.
Mike McCarthy is challenging the ruling on the field that he has 3 timeouts remaining.
Charter member of the WSN 1000-post Culb.

* - Banned for life from any WSN "Hall of Fame."

Quote 0 0
wiscopetty
buzzerbeater2 wrote:
I think the big thing lost in all of this is that McCarthy won a challenge! And I'm glad he did, because as soon as the ball was not in the grasp of Bryant's two hands, cries of "Throw the red flag!" arose in the household of the buzzerbeater. The spirit of the rule is bitter, but the letter of the law was sweet to the green and gold.

Yeah, wasn't that his first successful challenge of the season?
Quote 0 0
bhsblackhawks
dawgstyle wrote:
bhsblackhawks wrote:
Dawg, I feel like we're having the same debate we used to have with WR_88 about the college football playoffs. He used to argue that we should keep the BCS based on the fact that the playoff system isn't perfect. Sure, the playoff has flaws, but why would you want a system that's more flawed than the playoff?

I feel like you're arguing we should change the rule strictly because it has shown the ability to be wrong once every 4 years, even though it appears to me that every alternative rule would cause even more issue. It's the same concept. Sure, the Calvin Johnson Rule has flaws, but unless you have a better alternative, it's idiotic to change the rule (sorry WR_88, but I think the playoff this year proved that the BCS was idiotic).


Why is it I don't remember there being anything as controversial as this when it comes to a "catch" prior to The Calvin Johnson catch. Don't pretend there isn't another option, because the forward pass has been in the league for over 100 years and I don't recall anything like this prior to that play.

Burt Emanuel catch. Before this play, the rule in the NFL was that if the ball touched the ground during an attempted reception, it was incomplete. Now, as we all probably know, the ball can touch the ground as long as the player maintains possession throughout and the ground doesn't assist him in catching the ball. I remember seeing this when I was 7 years old and thinking basically the same thing I did Sunday. "He got screwed by that rule."

Obviously, this was a different aspect of the rules than the one in play on Sunday. Does anyone know when the whole "completing the process" was actually instituted? Was it a part of the above rule change?
Quote 0 0
bhsblackhawks
wiscopetty wrote:
buzzerbeater2 wrote:
I think the big thing lost in all of this is that McCarthy won a challenge! And I'm glad he did, because as soon as the ball was not in the grasp of Bryant's two hands, cries of "Throw the red flag!" arose in the household of the buzzerbeater. The spirit of the rule is bitter, but the letter of the law was sweet to the green and gold.

Yeah, wasn't that his first successful challenge of the season?

Yeah, they definitely mentioned (either during the game or the postgame show) that McCarthy hadn't won any challenges earlier in the year. He was something like 0-10 on the season before that.
Quote 0 0
db11
dawgstyle wrote:
thecrackerjack wrote:
dawgstyle wrote:
Penalties aren't thrown on intent?

WR and CB running down field side by side. Both tumble to the ground. No flag thrown for ACCIDENTAL contact. Measuring if the CB tripped him on purpose or if it was an accident is 100% intent.

I see just fine. I never coached a day in my life. I'm not even 40 years old. Just a sports junkie. I read, A LOT. Regardless of our backgrounds, you have been completely wrong multiple times in this discussion. Countless calls in the NFL are subjective, if you don't believe that, you truly aren't watching.


So is every subjective rule in the NFL stupid?


Not what I said at all. I am pointing out that his theory that rules are clear cut and that it makes a ref know exactly what to do is complete and utter you know what!

Here is a bombshell for you. The ref that called TD on the "fail mary," still believes he made the correct call.

Quote:
"By rule, I got it right," Easley told ESPN.com in September. "By rule, there's nothing else I could do with it. People ask me that all the time. They'll say, 'I'm sorry, but you made a bad call.' Then I say, 'Tell me, by rule, how I made a bad call?' And they can't. You have to go by the rules.


Regarded as one of the WORST calls in NFL history and that man believes BASED ON THE RULES he got it right. Many NFL rules are COMPLETELY subjective. What I am suggesting is removing one that a VAST majority of people thing is wrong.


I seem to recall something about Easley's decision being based on an incorrect understanding of the rule....and that's where the issue really took off, when it became clear that the replacement referees did not have a competent grasp on the NFL rulebook...which is no surprise considering that particular referee had never officiated higher than junior college football.
https://twitter.com/barwickipedia - Follow me. Because we all need a bit of sports snark in our lives.

"Doin' right ain't got no end."
-The Outlaw Josey Wales

"'Allegedly' is right, Mr. Polian. I have a hole in my ear drum, I'd never go for a swim, no matter how drunk me is."
-Pat McAfee
Quote 0 0
bhsblackhawks
db11 wrote:
dawgstyle wrote:
thecrackerjack wrote:
dawgstyle wrote:
Penalties aren't thrown on intent?

WR and CB running down field side by side. Both tumble to the ground. No flag thrown for ACCIDENTAL contact. Measuring if the CB tripped him on purpose or if it was an accident is 100% intent.

I see just fine. I never coached a day in my life. I'm not even 40 years old. Just a sports junkie. I read, A LOT. Regardless of our backgrounds, you have been completely wrong multiple times in this discussion. Countless calls in the NFL are subjective, if you don't believe that, you truly aren't watching.


So is every subjective rule in the NFL stupid?


Not what I said at all. I am pointing out that his theory that rules are clear cut and that it makes a ref know exactly what to do is complete and utter you know what!

Here is a bombshell for you. The ref that called TD on the "fail mary," still believes he made the correct call.

Quote:
"By rule, I got it right," Easley told ESPN.com in September. "By rule, there's nothing else I could do with it. People ask me that all the time. They'll say, 'I'm sorry, but you made a bad call.' Then I say, 'Tell me, by rule, how I made a bad call?' And they can't. You have to go by the rules.


Regarded as one of the WORST calls in NFL history and that man believes BASED ON THE RULES he got it right. Many NFL rules are COMPLETELY subjective. What I am suggesting is removing one that a VAST majority of people thing is wrong.


I seem to recall something about Easley's decision being based on an incorrect understanding of the rule....and that's where the issue really took off, when it became clear that the replacement referees did not have a competent grasp on the NFL rulebook...which is no surprise considering that particular referee had never officiated higher than junior college football.

He's still suffering because of that call.
Quote 0 0
thebillwaltontrip
The way the rule is worded, the refs absolutely made the correct call.

When Bryant jumped up and got both hands on the ball, the subsequent "steps" he took were not football moves but momentum induced stumbles as he went to the ground. And, on the way to the ground, the ball switched hands and then popped up into the air upon him landing on the ground, and then he established possession, which would be an incomplete pass since the ground aided him at that point.
Quote 0 0
safetysqueezepleezzee11
realitycheck wrote:
safetysqueezepleezzee11 wrote:
If you don't think refs make subjective calls, why did the NFL institute play reviews???
[h]Penalties ARE often thrown because of what a ref sees as INTENT.[/h]
The reason the NFL instituted play reviews is just because of that - refs make mistakes even when
they are trying to ref 'ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS'

It is no different than a MLB umpire and how they call strikes - often extremely extremely subjective.
That is why you tend to see some of the same refs in the NFL making tons of the SAME kind of calls.
Each refs sees things differently and yes that goes to INTENT, whether you agree or don't agree.
You make yourself seem to have missed a lot if you actually coached for 40 years.
Reminds me of one of the worst umpires I saw when I played fastpitch softball. The guy always had the
same excuse - 'I have umped for 20 years'(and more as years went on). Sad thing is the guy never got
any better and actually got worse. He saw what he wanted to see, not what was actually happening.


Can you please give me an example or a situation where an official throws a flag based on intent only? I just want to understand what your meaning of intent is versus mine.



A couple of very EASY ones that I think you can understand:
1. the 'pick' play called on receivers running routes - if the intent is to run the d-back into another player
2. when an offensive and defensive players get their feet tangled when the offensive player is running a
route for a pass - was it intentional(intent) or just incidental(another stupid word the NFL uses)

Both of these often will require the ref to think of INTENT

Another is when a QB throws a pass away when the QB is in the pocket.
The ref has to consider intent 'if' they feel a receiver isn't in the vicinity.
I think I could come up with a dozen or more if I took the time to think about it.
Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje