Week 15 - (Space Reserved for Probable Controversial PIT-NE Thing)

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:09 am

I am also okay with their potentially being more fumbles if interpreted like it should be interpreted.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:15 am

Pruitt wrote:Didn't watch the game, but what kind of nonsense is this?

So will this be the lasting image of the 2017 season?

as dumb is that looked, it's no less dumb than guessing where a football ended up in a pile and then putting it down on the ground accordingly to help create that moment

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:17 am

Danny Heifetz from The Ringer wrote:...The reversal of Steelers tight end Jesse James’s catch by the coward replay booth...

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:07 am

Brontoburglar wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Didn't watch the game, but what kind of nonsense is this?

So will this be the lasting image of the 2017 season?

as dumb is that looked, it's no less dumb than guessing where a football ended up in a pile and then putting it down on the ground accordingly to help create that moment

Exactly, let's not act like 97% of all spots are essentially guesses. The chains just make it all look legitimate.

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:42 am

It's just amazing to me that the NFL would botch the replay system such as it is now.

You can argue that the ball moved. You can also argue that the ball never touched the ground. When they initially launched the replay system, they were wary of overturning calls without irrefutable evidence. I dunno. Just seems they've gone away from that..because now it'd appear that the replay was just used to proffer another opinion on the scoring play, instead of accepting the ruling on the field.

THIS is one of the reasons people are tuning football out, btw...Cuz when you stop play, peoples' minds wander.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:18 am

EnochRoot wrote:It's just amazing to me that the NFL would botch the replay system such as it is now.

You can argue that the ball moved. You can also argue that the ball never touched the ground. When they initially launched the replay system, they were wary of overturning calls without irrefutable evidence. I dunno. Just seems they've gone away from that..because now it'd appear that the replay was just used to proffer another opinion on the scoring play, instead of accepting the ruling on the field.

THIS is one of the reasons people are tuning football out, btw...Cuz when you stop play, peoples' minds wander.

It the reason a lot of people are against replay in general but they end up being called Neanderthals.
For example in baseball replay is supposed to correct obvious errors but once it's brought in, it has to also check if a runner lifted his toe off the bag. Can't have judgmental replay.

Why are the 4 major sports who rake in billions of dollars not using HAWKEYE!? Fuck a cricket match in Bangalore has hawkeye.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:21 am

It's controversies like these that make me glad my team fell out of contention several weeks ago.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:35 am

If Diddy, Steph Curry, and Colin Kaepernick buy the Panthers that would be hilarious.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:44 am

Johnnie wrote:If Diddy, Steph Curry, and Colin Kaepernick buy the Panthers that would be hilarious.

Yeah, but it's in the NFL owners' bylaws that you can't have inmates running the prison.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:36 pm

Didn't see the games, but from what I read the Steelers and Raiders got fucked in back to back games on stupid rules/interpretation of rules that have cost the Lions wins in the last few years. So my level of sympathy is there, but also not?

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:38 pm

https://twitter.com/PFTCommenter/status ... 4262172673

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:49 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote:
brian wrote:Also, that Browns at Bears game next week is likely going to determine if Cleveland goes 0-16. Browns fans looking for a glimmer of hope might be forced to root for Pittsburgh here for the next four hours hoping that Pittsburgh is resting their starters Week 17.

The Bears are 0-7 as favorites in games coached by John Fox.

Something's gotta give this weekend.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:52 pm

sancarlos wrote:It's controversies like these that make me glad my team fell out of contention several weeks ago.

It makes me think I picked a good year to stop watching football.

(and from the replays I saw online, that should have been a catch)

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:52 pm

Having lived through an 0-16 season where the Week 17 game was an essentially unwinnable rivalry game on the road, I'm here to tell you that like that Week 16 game last year against the Chargers that this will be the Browns Super Bowl. I like the Browns pretty much regardless of whatever the spread is. I'm not sure the Bears will be ready for how motivated they're going to be.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:53 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:
sancarlos wrote:It's controversies like these that make me glad my team fell out of contention several weeks ago.

It makes me think I picked a good year to stop watching football.

(and from the replays I saw online, that should have been a catch)

Except according to the rules, it isn't.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:13 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:
sancarlos wrote:It's controversies like these that make me glad my team fell out of contention several weeks ago.

It makes me think I picked a good year to stop watching football.

(and from the replays I saw online, that should have been a catch)

Except according to the rules, it isn't.

Considering there are no definite angles showing the ball touched the ground, it should have been a catch because the call on the field was a catch.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:24 pm

Giff wrote:
Rush2112 wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:
sancarlos wrote:It's controversies like these that make me glad my team fell out of contention several weeks ago.

It makes me think I picked a good year to stop watching football.

(and from the replays I saw online, that should have been a catch)

Except according to the rules, it isn't.

Considering there are no definite angles showing the ball touched the ground, it should have been a catch because the call on the field was a catch.

pretty sure the ball hits the ground from this angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpoN__w10xI

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:36 pm

degenerasian wrote:
Giff wrote:
Rush2112 wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:
sancarlos wrote:It's controversies like these that make me glad my team fell out of contention several weeks ago.

It makes me think I picked a good year to stop watching football.

(and from the replays I saw online, that should have been a catch)

Except according to the rules, it isn't.

Considering there are no definite angles showing the ball touched the ground, it should have been a catch because the call on the field was a catch.

pretty sure the ball hits the ground from this angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpoN__w10xI

Pretty sure is not definitive though. By the NFL's standards, the ruling on the field should've stood.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:40 pm

Have like four alerts about Diddy wanting to buy the Panthers, which is beyond ridiculous. I'm not even sure how some of this stuff becomes a new story. Going price would probably be AT LEAST $2 billion.

Must as well have a story about me wanting to buy the Panthers.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:48 pm

brian wrote:Have like four alerts about Diddy wanting to buy the Panthers, which is beyond ridiculous. I'm not even sure how some of this stuff becomes a new story. Going price would probably be AT LEAST $2 billion.

Must as well have a story about me wanting to buy the Panthers.

You could. You just need to line up a couple/few extremely rich friends. It worked for Derek Jeter.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:55 pm

EnochRoot wrote:
Pretty sure is not definitive though. By the NFL's standards, the ruling on the field should've stood.

It's not like the Patriots made the ruling. The NFL head of officiating tweeted and posted a video about how it wasn't a catch. So by their standards, it wasn't a catch because he didn't control the ball all the way to the ground.

People can have problems with the rule, but by the guidelines within the rule, it wasn't a catch.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:11 pm

Jesse James bobbled that ball as a thumb at what he thinks is a stupid rule.

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:14 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
Pretty sure is not definitive though. By the NFL's standards, the ruling on the field should've stood.

It's not like the Patriots made the ruling. The NFL head of officiating tweeted and posted a video about how it wasn't a catch. So by their standards, it wasn't a catch because he didn't control the ball all the way to the ground.

People can have problems with the rule, but by the guidelines within the rule, it wasn't a catch.

I have no fucks to give about the Patriots (or the Steelers, for that matter), and even less to give about any MMQB'ing an NFL official may or may not tweet.

I'm only saying that the video was not conclusive that the ball hit the ground. In order to overturn the call on the field, don't you need conclusive evidence? In which case, the replay system was used as another ref offering his opinion over the one who called the play on the field.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:17 pm

Enoch, Enoch, Enoch....

The NFL tweeted *and* posted about how it wasn't a catch. Can't question the league's ruling on these matters.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:36 pm

EnochRoot wrote:
I'm only saying that the video was not conclusive that the ball hit the ground. In order to overturn the call on the field, don't you need conclusive evidence? In which case, the replay system was used as another ref offering his opinion over the one who called the play on the field.

Must have been something else besides the ground that made the ball move when both his hands were off the ball then I guess.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:36 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
I'm only saying that the video was not conclusive that the ball hit the ground. In order to overturn the call on the field, don't you need conclusive evidence? In which case, the replay system was used as another ref offering his opinion over the one who called the play on the field.

Must have been something else besides the ground that made the ball move when both his hands were off the ball then I guess.

You do know it's possible to have a hand under the ball and the ball still move, right?

duff · Post by **duff** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:39 pm

A_B wrote:
Rush2112 wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
I'm only saying that the video was not conclusive that the ball hit the ground. In order to overturn the call on the field, don't you need conclusive evidence? In which case, the replay system was used as another ref offering his opinion over the one who called the play on the field.

Must have been something else besides the ground that made the ball move when both his hands were off the ball then I guess.

You do know it's possible to have a hand under the ball and the ball still move, right?

Only if the PSI is within specifications.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:40 pm

A_B wrote:
You do know it's possible to have a hand under the ball and the ball still move, right?

Yes. But he didn't have his hand under the ball. His left hand is off the ball and his right hand (if it's holding the ball at all when he makes contact with the ground) is on the side of the ball. The ball spins and then moves at an angle all because of contact the ball is making with the ground as he tries to make the catch.

This type of play happens countless times during the season. Funny that people only get up in arms about it when it happens around the goal line.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:41 pm

duff wrote:
A_B wrote:
Rush2112 wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
I'm only saying that the video was not conclusive that the ball hit the ground. In order to overturn the call on the field, don't you need conclusive evidence? In which case, the replay system was used as another ref offering his opinion over the one who called the play on the field.

Must have been something else besides the ground that made the ball move when both his hands were off the ball then I guess.

You do know it's possible to have a hand under the ball and the ball still move, right?

Only if the PSI is within specifications.

Well if James had just been on steroids like the old Steelers teams he would have been strong enough to hold on to the ball.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:53 pm

Just like to point out the prescient nature of the title of this thread.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:58 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
Pretty sure is not definitive though. By the NFL's standards, the ruling on the field should've stood.

It's not like the Patriots made the ruling. The NFL head of officiating tweeted and posted a video about how it wasn't a catch. So by their standards, it wasn't a catch because he didn't control the ball all the way to the ground.

People can have problems with the rule, but by the guidelines within the rule, it wasn't a catch.

The NFL's video explaining why it wasn't a catch literally starts with a sentence saying the pass was completed

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:06 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
The NFL's video explaining why it wasn't a catch literally starts with a sentence saying the pass was completed

and that's literally a word choice issue. Would "throws the ball towards James" please you more?

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:33 pm

How much of the problem is the rules are different near the goal line for runners versus receivers? If he's a runner and the ball crosses the goal line just like that (falls to the ground, but is untouched by a defender), it's a touchdown as soon as the ball breaks the plane, even if he loses control of the ball.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:44 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote:How much of the problem is the rules are different near the goal line for runners versus receivers? If he's a runner and the ball crosses the goal line just like that (falls to the ground, but is untouched by a defender), it's a touchdown as soon as the ball breaks the plane, even if he loses control of the ball.

I think that's it. Plus Schrodinger's Touchdown thing where, if a receiver crosses the line with the football in his hands, it's both a touchdown and not a touchdown until you see what happens a second after that.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:50 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
DSafetyGuy wrote:How much of the problem is the rules are different near the goal line for runners versus receivers? If he's a runner and the ball crosses the goal line just like that (falls to the ground, but is untouched by a defender), it's a touchdown as soon as the ball breaks the plane, even if he loses control of the ball.

I think that's it. Plus Schrodinger's Touchdown thing where, if a receiver crosses the line with the football in his hands, it's both a touchdown and not a touchdown until you see what happens a second after that.

I tend to think you do need to complete the catch...however I think a knee & elbow down and a lunge move should have been enough to make him a ballcarrier. They called the rule "right" it's just a bad rule. I'm nine million percent positive if it went just like this but with teams reversed Rush would be apoplectic.

duff · Post by **duff** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:55 pm

A_B wrote:I'm nine million percent positive if it went just like this but with teams reversed Rush would be apoplectic.

Absolutely. And we would never hear about how the commissioner's office has it it for NE. Maybe not the last part from rush, but from most of their fans.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:56 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
The NFL's video explaining why it wasn't a catch literally starts with a sentence saying the pass was completed

and that's literally a word choice issue. Would "throws the ball towards James" please you more?

saying something is the opposite of what you're explaining is not a word choice issue

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:15 pm

sancarlos wrote:
brian wrote:Have like four alerts about Diddy wanting to buy the Panthers, which is beyond ridiculous. I'm not even sure how some of this stuff becomes a new story. Going price would probably be AT LEAST $2 billion.

Must as well have a story about me wanting to buy the Panthers.

You could. You just need to line up a couple/few extremely rich friends. It worked for Derek Jeter.

Derek Jeter net worth: $185 million

Diddy net worth: $820 million

Yes, seriously.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:24 pm

I know the guy is rich (and I don't know if I'm buying $820M, but I wouldn't doubt about $500M), but even if you give him the benefit of the doubt he needs at least one more billionaire to get even close.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:26 pm

Agreed. And I'm hoping he can do it.