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

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:33 pm

duff wrote:
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.

Except a similar thing did happen a few weeks back with a ball thrown to Gronk in the endzone and it was ruled an incomplete pass, and I was perfectly fine with the ruling. Just like I am when a similar thing happens elsewhere on the field.

Does it suck to be on the incomplete side? Yup. It's still the correct call according to the rulebook (and the Pats have lost in egregious fashion thanks to rulebook calls, just like they've benefited.)

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:41 pm

In a 41-16 game. Not even close.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:45 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
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.

It's also funny how people only get up in arms about election improprieties for things like the US President and not local PTA chief. You know, when the things matter a lot more.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:59 pm

Gunpowder wrote:It's also funny how people only get up in arms about election improprieties for things like the US President and not local PTA chief. You know, when the things matter a lot more.

A rule is a rule. It was the correct interpretation of the rule. Just like it is countless other times. If you're going to get up in arms about in a close game then get up in arms about it others times when it's correctly called.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:02 pm

A_B wrote:In a 41-16 game. Not even close.

So refs are supposed to change the way they call a game because of the score? Ok.

It's exactly the same thing, a TD was called back because the catch wasn't completed because of the ball contacting the ground. No matter, if it's 0-0 in the first second of a game or the score is about to be 100-0 with a second left.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:11 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
A_B wrote:In a 41-16 game. Not even close.

So refs are supposed to change the way they call a game because of the score? Ok.

It's exactly the same thing, a TD was called back because the catch wasn't completed because of the ball contacting the ground. No matter, if it's 0-0 in the first second of a game or the score is about to be 100-0 with a second left.

NO you call the game the same. You may not have noticed the other 2-3 times I said they called it right. All I'm saying is it's ok to be apoplectic in This situation if it happens to your team. That's why it's a bad rule.

But I give. You are a bastion of impartiality in these dark days.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:17 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:It's also funny how people only get up in arms about election improprieties for things like the US President and not local PTA chief. You know, when the things matter a lot more.

A rule is a rule. It was the correct interpretation of the rule. Just like it is countless other times. If you're going to get up in arms about in a close game then get up in arms about it others times when it's correctly called.

That's not how anything works. When Gronkowski got pass interfered with in the endzone against Carolina years ago, didn't you all make a big deal out of it? Why not in some shit game on 2nd and 4 in the 1st quarter?

People HAVE gotten up in arms about the rule other times when it's called, and while I don't really care that much in this case, my opinion is that you shouldn't be able to assume that James didn't have his hand underneath the ball like you are doing here. The point of replay is that it is supposed to be conclusive, not probable.

But expecting people to care as much about a defensive holding call on a crucial 4th and 1 late in the 4th quarter of a huge game just as much as they care about a defensive holding call on the first drive of the season opener between Cleveland and San Francisco is just...it's just dumb. This was a big moment in a huge game that everyone was watching. It's gonna get more publicity than a call people don't like in a Bills preseason game.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:18 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:It's also funny how people only get up in arms about election improprieties for things like the US President and not local PTA chief. You know, when the things matter a lot more.

A rule is a rule. It was the correct interpretation of the rule. Just like it is countless other times. If you're going to get up in arms about in a close game then get up in arms about it others times when it's correctly called.

No one in this thread has argued the catch rule was applied improperly

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:22 pm

viewtopic.php?p=24187#p24187

Why should PI be enforced differently depending on the position in the game?

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:27 pm

I'd also like to see the Sports Science segment from a similar play early in a game between terrible teams.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:32 pm

I think that's the big thing. Even if it's true that the rule was applied correctly, the same play in the first quarter at midfield probably stays a reception. Even if NE had challenged it, it probably STILL remains a reception.

So that's the difference.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:36 pm

Gunpowder wrote:http://sportsfrog.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=24187#p24187
Why should PI be enforced differently depending on the position in the game?

Not what was being argued. In that case, it was the regular run of the mill interference vs. a guy being fucking mugged by the defender.

Why is there no discussion of the short of the end zone not out of bounds crossing route and idiotic throw / fake spike? You know the plays that actually lost the Steelers the game, or at least a chance to play for OT?

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm

brian wrote:I think that's the big thing. Even if it's true that the rule was applied correctly, the same play in the first quarter at midfield probably stays a reception. Even if NE had challenged it, it probably STILL remains a reception.

So that's the difference.

Not that I watch all the games, so my example if from another Pats game. There was a 3rd down play in the Bills-Pats game a few weeks back that a similar thing happened and it was called incomplete.

I couldn't find a list of team challenges quickly, but I do believe that the call was upheld after official review.

ETA: If it's a bang bang play maybe it is reception. If it's reviewed either by rule or direct challenge it probably isn't, but that's why we have instant replay right?

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:56 pm

The NFL doesn't call (or not call) penalties based on score and time. It's not the NHL.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:58 pm

degenerasian wrote:The NFL doesn't call (or not call) penalties based on score and time. It's not the NHL.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're serious, that's one of the silliest and most naive things I've ever read here.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:01 pm

brian wrote:
degenerasian wrote:The NFL doesn't call (or not call) penalties based on score and time. It's not the NHL.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you're serious, that's one of the silliest and most naive things I've ever read here.

The NFL part or the NHL part? You know NHL refs put their whistles away. Playoff overtime you have to kill someone to maybe get a penalty.

Post by **brian** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:06 pm

Well, I agree NHL officials swallow their whistle, but NFL refs do the same thing at the end of games. I will grant you it's probably not quite as bad/blatant as the NHL however.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:55 pm

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc2sB90lDZl/

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:10 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:http://sportsfrog.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=24187#p24187
Why should PI be enforced differently depending on the position in the game?

Not what was being argued. In that case, it was the regular run of the mill interference vs. a guy being fucking mugged by the defender.

Why is there no discussion of the short of the end zone not out of bounds crossing route and idiotic throw / fake spike? You know the plays that actually lost the Steelers the game, or at least a chance to play for OT?

because anyone with a pulse knows with 29 seconds left from the opponent's 10 is plenty of time to run any play you want? and because a throw short of the end zone over the middle of the field the play before was a bizarre rule away from being a potential game-winning touchdown? and because the sequence doesn't happen in the first place if the catch rule was straightforward?

it's truly amusing to see how much of a caricature your patriots fandom turns you into

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:05 pm

My stating that they ran stupid plays has nothing to do with what team I am or am not a fan of. In fact, as a Pats fan, I'm glad they ran an idiotic short cross then a broken one receiver "play" into what basically amounted to quadruple coverage.

If they intend to go for the win why aren't they throwing to the end zone for two plays, so it's either a winning TD or an incomplete. No need to gain a couple of yards to get in FG range, they're already there. Boswell is one of the better kickers in the game and had already made one from over 50 yards in the game.

Instead, they throw a crossing route that is relying on a reserve receiver to either break a tackle to get to the sideline to gain what 5 yards? The play makes no sense. All it gains them less room for their receivers to operate. If it was a deeper route closer to the goal line, maybe. Seems they'd already made the decision to try for the win so a play sorry of the goal line doesn't make sense.

If that was the Pats that did that sequence of plays I would have have been pissed. Lord knows McDaniels has called some, in my mind, idiotic plays and I've been pissed about that.

Glad you showed you to show off your journalistic bona fides.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:23 pm

as stated in my previous post, the first play from the 10 -- and the subject of much of this thread -- was a pass short of the goal line.

are you criticizing that play call too, simply because the outcome wasn't a touchdown?

I'm also not sure how "journalistic bona fides" is a slam when it's simply logistical consistency and trolling to fuck with your defensiveness.

Square Rob · Post by **Square Rob** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:26 pm

The only things worse than the current catch rules are Pats fans and cancer.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:35 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:as stated in my previous post, the first play from the 10 -- and the subject of much of this thread -- was a pass short of the goal line.

are you criticizing that play call too, simply because the outcome wasn't a touchdown?

I'm also not sure how "journalistic bona fides" is a slam when it's simply logistical consistency and trolling to fuck with your defensiveness.

Wasn't it tad of a broken play and Ben simply trying to find someone to throw too? And there's confusion to if Ben was throwing to James short of the goal line or Juju who's actually in good position on the other side of the goal line. Even if the pass was intended for James he's actually headed in the right direction and has a chance for scoring if he completed the catch. The Heyward-Bey pass had no chance of scoring. If he had broken the Butler tackle there were 2-3 other Pats there to stop him short of the goal line.

Well, you typically only show up to shower us with your insider information due to your credentials, or have you again already said to much?

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:38 pm

Square Rob wrote:The only things worse than the current catch rules are Pats fans and cancer.

Ya, I'm sure if this happened to any other team that has a following in here that people wouldn't be discussing it at all.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:50 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:as stated in my previous post, the first play from the 10 -- and the subject of much of this thread -- was a pass short of the goal line.

are you criticizing that play call too, simply because the outcome wasn't a touchdown?

I'm also not sure how "journalistic bona fides" is a slam when it's simply logistical consistency and trolling to fuck with your defensiveness.

Wasn't it tad of a broken play and Ben simply trying to find someone to throw too? And there's confusion to if Ben was throwing to James short of the goal line or Juju who's actually in good position on the other side of the goal line.

No, it was not a broken play. Smith-Schuster was covered in the end zone. Ben pump fakes to the first read and immediately throws to the next read. Given the way he scanned the field I seriously doubt he saw the covered guy behind the wide-open guy first.

Even if the pass was intended for James he's actually headed in the right direction and has a chance for scoring if he completed the catch.

He sat his route down and is facing Roethlisberger when the ball was thrown -- but yes, he has a chance of scoring.

The Heyward-Bey pass had no chance of scoring. If he had broken the Butler tackle there were 2-3 other Pats there to stop him short of the goal line.

You're misremembering this one too.

Butler gets a ton of credit for closing exceptionally well here. But if DHB turns up field, he's got interference in front of him -- there are no other Patriot players with a clear shot -- if he breaks the tackle. And he's also easily out of bounds if Butler doesn't make a great play to keep him in bounds. This is far more of a "great play by the defense" situation here than "shitty play call and pass choice by the offense."

Well, you typically only show up to shower us with your insider information due to your credentials, or have you again already said to much?

I sure hope those two GIFs weren't too much. I got the footage to make them from a proprietary system called youtube dot com that only those of us who went to journalism school can access.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:18 pm

Thanks for sharing those with us!

I had the pressure from Flowers associated with the James play not the Heyward-Bey catch.

I still don't think the crossing route was a smart play in that situation. While it was a good tackle by Butler it still requires at least one broken tackle and it's not a complete clip and he's at the periphery but it appears Harmon has an angle ahead of whomever you might think would be able to block him.

Again that route makes sense if you trying to gain a few yards to make the FG easier, or if you have a TO to play with if he doesn't make it OOB. Heat of the moment I guess, but the smartest play would have been to send into the 3rd row if he was feeling the pressure and felt he had to get rid of it no?

Risking not getting out of bounds leads to the real shit show of a final play where 9 of the 11 players on offense thought it was a spike situation and Ben forcing a pass. He should have thrown that ball into the 3rd row as well.

Alternatively, Ben seems to have enough time to throw to the TE(?) who appears to have position on the other safety at the top of the screen. The camera pans toward the action so you can't really tell, or maybe he's not in his vision. Another option is moving more laterally to buy some time for the pair of WR in the end zone and then throwing the ball away if pressure is reapplied. I just see any benefit to relying on the receiver to break a tackle to stop the clock.

I hate plays that are short of the marker that requires a receiver to make a move to gain the first and I see this as the same sort of thing.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:21 am

to go back to the previous point of a hell of a play by Butler: he's three+ yards away from DHB at the time of the catch

if everything else is going to be parsed regarding the Steelers' play-calling and Ben's decision-making, that play he made can't be taken for granted. if you're going to look at this screen shot, and ran this play 100 different times, I'd wager it's better than 50/50 DHB is not tackled out of bounds if he sprints straight to the sideline

it's also more than just simply hating throwing short of the sticks/end zone. if a team knows you're in a position to throw to the end zone -- as evidenced by the Patriots' coverages -- throwing short is going to present good opportunities for you. as evidenced by the catch rule pass. James was open because the Patriots didn't want to get burned in the end zone. as is understandable.

and when you have 30 seconds to get 10 yards or kick a field goal, throwing short is not automatically a horrible decision anyway. viewing what the Steelers did in the context of "they were going for the win so they should have thrown to the end zone" is way too binary. the reason they were going for the win was because of that field position. the field goal was a near guarantee. so it was a no-lose situation to try for the end zone within reason.

of course, we all know that it was a loss. and I think most of us know why there's no discussion about the final play. because if there was, it was simply look like this:

user wrote:
that was a bad throw by Ben

agreed

yep

totally

incredibly

what you all said

it's not anti-Patriots or pro-Steelers bias that the most controversial part of the game (and the NFL) is what's getting the most discussion.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:17 am

Rush2112 wrote:because anyone with a pulse knows with 29 seconds left from the opponent's 10 is plenty of time to run any play you want? and because a throw short of the end zone over the middle of the field the play before was a bizarre rule away from being a potential game-winning touchdown? and because the sequence doesn't happen in the first place if the catch rule was straightforward?

Uhhh, because there's nothing to debate? Why isn't anybody talking about a dropped pass in the 2nd quarter? Are you this dense (don't answer that) that you don't realize every single game with a controversial (or at least one that draws attention) call has an earlier play in which one of the teams could have done something to eliminate the significance of the call?

Ok let's debate it. Yes I didn't like the throw to DH-fuckin-B of all people in the middle of the field. If the Steelers would have thrown Eric Rowe onto the ground and completed that fake spike, would there be nothing to argue about because New England shouldn't have allowed a drag route to go for 60+ yards in the first place?

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:18 am

"Journalistic bonafides"? Holy shit you transcend douchedom.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:21 am

Rush2112 wrote:Thanks for sharing those with us!

I had the pressure from Flowers associated with the James play not the Heyward-Bey catch.

I still don't think the crossing route was a smart play in that situation. While it was a good tackle by Butler it still requires at least one broken tackle and it's not a complete clip and he's at the periphery but it appears Harmon has an angle ahead of whomever you might think would be able to block him.

Again that route makes sense if you trying to gain a few yards to make the FG easier, or if you have a TO to play with if he doesn't make it OOB. Heat of the moment I guess, but the smartest play would have been to send into the 3rd row if he was feeling the pressure and felt he had to get rid of it no?

Risking not getting out of bounds leads to the real shit show of a final play where 9 of the 11 players on offense thought it was a spike situation and Ben forcing a pass. He should have thrown that ball into the 3rd row as well.

Alternatively, Ben seems to have enough time to throw to the TE(?) who appears to have position on the other safety at the top of the screen. The camera pans toward the action so you can't really tell, or maybe he's not in his vision. Another option is moving more laterally to buy some time for the pair of WR in the end zone and then throwing the ball away if pressure is reapplied. I just see any benefit to relying on the receiver to break a tackle to stop the clock.

I hate plays that are short of the marker that requires a receiver to make a move to gain the first and I see this as the same sort of thing.

There are all kinds of routes on most plays. The QB when pressured has to get rid of the ball and on this one everyone else was pretty well covered. You're starting to sound like a Steelers fan who wants to fire everybody because they think the OC decides who to throw the ball to.

It looked like Roethlisberger got rid of that ball too early but he was pressured immediately and knows time is working against him. I didn't like it but you're listening to way too much talk radio where they always say the same things and every play has to fit a narrative bigger than a simple football game, even though they don't.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:26 am

Brontoburglar wrote:
it's not anti-Patriots or pro-Steelers bias that the most controversial part of the game (and the NFL) is what's getting the most discussion.

I clearly didn't have the journalistic bona fides to get this point across, but it was the whole point of my argument from the jump.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:31 am

Yeah I'm really not flipping out over this at all just because of the teams. My opinion is that it should NOT have been overturned. That's as strongly as I'm even commenting on it from that regard.

But the thought that this should get no more attention than any other play in an NFL season is nonsensical. If you use the "what about the other plays!" defense here, you should truly never ever complain about any call in any game because none of them singlehandedly decided a previously perfectly played game.

EDIT: NOT overturned. Should not have been overturned on replay. Iiiiite.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:13 am

Johnnie wrote:Agreed. And I'm hoping he can do it.

Well, he only has to get the sale approved by other NFL owners. I'm sure that would be a smooth process.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:53 am

Gunpowder wrote:Yeah I'm really not flipping out over this at all just because of the teams. My opinion is that it should have been overturned. That's as strongly as I'm even commenting on it from that regard.

But the thought that this should get no more attention than any other play in an NFL season is nonsensical. If you use the "what about the other plays!" defense here, you should truly never ever complain about any call in any game because none of them singlehandedly decided a previously perfectly played game.

So your opinion is that the non-catch is the correct call then?

Controversial or bad calls happen all the time. It's a different ball of wax if it was the last play of the game. They had almost 30 seconds to try to win the game and what a 99% chance of sending the game to overtime? They ran one bad play and one horrific one in my opinion, and that's not from talk radio (which I don't listen to, I'm not up for 24/7 Broncos talk) that's from watching football. They want to throw short of the goal and hope for a guy to make a play to get in then throw it to a guy going toward the goal...in the particular play, James is on a delayed route throw it to him and hope for him to blow through the safety.

In regards to Bronto's bona fides, I guess you don't follow the political threads.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:58 am

Rush2112 wrote:
So your opinion is that the non-catch is the correct call then?

I think most in this whole discussion have always agreed on that point.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:20 pm

A_B wrote:I think most in this whole discussion have always agreed on that point.

Except for the people that argued that it didn't touch the ground, so I don't know about most.

If it is most, then why is it a controversy? We can discuss if the rule needs to be changed. I believe that they did after the similar Dez play a few years back and didn't change but clarified, but according to the current rules, it isn't a catch.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:32 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
A_B wrote:I think most in this whole discussion have always agreed on that point.

Except for the people that argued that it didn't touch the ground, so I don't know about most.

If it is most, then why is it a controversy? We can discuss if the rule needs to be changed. I believe that they did after the similar Dez play a few years back and didn't change but clarified, but according to the current rules, it isn't a catch.

We were trying to, then #patsfan happened.

Post by **brian** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:36 pm

#patsplaining

Because pro football was invented in New England.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:45 pm

A_B wrote:We were trying to, then #patsfan happened.

Ah, so stating that the correct call was made to those calling it a catch is #patsfan. Got ya.

Brian sorry my favourite franchise actually has hired a competent coach and drafted well rather than just improving to mediocre. You're bad enough with your Tiger and Red Wing bragging (oh wait it's Knights now that the Wings missed the playoffs, right?) I can't wait until the Lions have continued success after sucking for decades, oh ya that's probably not going to happen, they'd rather just waste another great players career.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:46 pm

brian wrote:#patsplaining

Because pro football was invented in New England.

I saw a Schefter tweet yesterday about the Thomas Davis suspension. I clicked into the replies for some reason, and there were a bunch of people complaining about the punishment in the context of Gronk only getting one game for his outside-the-bounds-of-play bullshit against the Bills. There was a Pats fan dutifully replying to the first wave of them with the comment "repeat offender!", "repeat offender!", "repeat offender!", even throwing in a screenshot of Davis' prior suspensions at one point.