|
On September 28 2012 07:01 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 06:58 Malinor wrote:
With any additional angle I see of this play, it seems to me it is just impossible to call. Of course that is from my very limited knowledge, but even with the rules posted in this thread, I cannot make a decision anymore. That is just too many hands on the ball at various stages of the catch until they hit the ground.
And the fact that the catch itself is so difficult to call just goes to highlight the importance of them missing the offensive PI call on that play.
My point isn't to say Seahawks deserved that TD. They very clearly didn't based on the PI from Tate (which almost NEVER seem to get called in Hail Mary plays anyway, let me add).
My point is that if you watch any of the TD clips at Full Speed just ONCE, pretend you haven't heard all the negative commentary and this is the first time youve seen the clip. What's your call? Its not that obvious, it looks like both grab the ball, which means its a tie which goes to the passing team.
With the hindsight, the hundreds of slow motion viewings, its all of a sudden so obvious and a "travesty", as Probe1 so eloquently puts it. Yet in the heat of the moment you have about half a second to see the catch actually happen. In this situation it really isn't so obvious and in a review you need very strong evidence to overturn the call on the field. It isn't some kind of terribly obvious call that never should have happened. Calls like these happen all the time, but everyone jumped on this one case.
Everyone (even Obama, Clinton, and Paul Ryan) took turns to shit on the Seahawks for the next couple days. Then once the refs and the NFL come to an agreement, suddenly a new exclusive video comes out that makes the call seem less bad. Suddenly a good amount of articles come out saying, "well maybe it wasn't so terrible of a call" and "we gotta move on". I just see this as classic case of the media blowing this whole thing out of proportion to promote their agenda (which isn't a bad one, let me get that straight) and 90% of the country just blinding following along, throwing one city under the bus.
The call wasn't some kind of historically terrible lapse of judgement. The Seahawks players, fans, and coach's reactions were not "dishonorable" or "shameful". These things have happened in the past and teams have taken wins they didn't deserve unapologetically many times over. Its just in this case, we all wanted the refs back and it was a team thats easy to turn into a villain in circumstances easy to aggravate.
How do you guys not see this?
Edit: thinking about this over, I realize that Seahawks have never been a very popular team to begin with so its not like this changes much anyway. If this event means we get the real refs back its all worth it
|
if you watch the espn little spot they did about it its pretty simple. The defender had a perfect grab with the ball and brought it to his chest before tate ever had 1 hand on the ball. at the beginning of the catch he had finger tips while yet another packer managed to have a full hand on it. what happened on the ground is irrelevant as tate was never near having anything resembling possession of the ball when it mattered. Show me any point at all when tate had 2 hands on the ball or any influence on where the ball was or was going to be.
How do you not instantly see tates arm flailing well outside of where the ball is. regardless of the offensive pi you can clearly see that tate never had a chance for possession of the ball.
|
51486 Posts
Flacco returning to his Flacass form?
|
On September 28 2012 11:10 Sermokala wrote:
if you watch the espn little spot they did about it its pretty simple. The defender had a perfect grab with the ball and brought it to his chest before tate ever had 1 hand on the ball. at the beginning of the catch he had finger tips while yet another packer managed to have a full hand on it. what happened on the ground is irrelevant as tate was never near having anything resembling possession of the ball when it mattered. Show me any point at all when tate had 2 hands on the ball or any influence on where the ball was or was going to be.
How do you not instantly see tates arm flailing well outside of where the ball is. regardless of the offensive pi you can clearly see that tate never had a chance for possession of the ball.
First of all, way to completely miss the point of my post.
Second, no. Look at the slow motion of ANY of the videos. Both reach the ball at the same time. Also 2 hands isn't a requirement to have control of the ball. Tate always had 1 arm in between the ball and Jennings's chest. In the video I posted you see both land on the ground the ball against Tate's body and Jennings wrestles it out. Jennings probably should have been awarded the interception, but heres the point you COMPLETELY missed from my post.
It isn't an obvious call especially if you had to make a judgement call on the field in the heat of the moment without any replays
|
On September 28 2012 11:16 GTR wrote:
Flacco returning to his Flacass form?
You spoke too soon, was a really good drive for him right there.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 28 2012 11:07 Jerubaal wrote:
I'm not speaking for myself, I'm describing your behavior.
Not sure whether I'm supposed to take you seriously. Thanks for telling me the true meaning behind my actions though. And here I thought I knew myself.
|
On September 28 2012 11:16 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 11:10 Sermokala wrote:
if you watch the espn little spot they did about it its pretty simple. The defender had a perfect grab with the ball and brought it to his chest before tate ever had 1 hand on the ball. at the beginning of the catch he had finger tips while yet another packer managed to have a full hand on it. what happened on the ground is irrelevant as tate was never near having anything resembling possession of the ball when it mattered. Show me any point at all when tate had 2 hands on the ball or any influence on where the ball was or was going to be.
How do you not instantly see tates arm flailing well outside of where the ball is. regardless of the offensive pi you can clearly see that tate never had a chance for possession of the ball. First of all, way to completely miss the point of my post. Second, no. Look at the slow motion of ANY of the videos. Both reach the ball at the same time. Also 2 hands isn't a requirement to have control of the ball. Tate always had 1 arm in between the ball and Jennings's chest. In the video I posted you see both land on the ground the ball against Tate's body and Jennings wrestles it out. Jennings probably should have been awarded the interception, but heres the point you COMPLETELY missed from my post. It isn't an obvious call especially if you had to make a judgement call on the field in the heat of the moment without any replays
They don't reach the ball at the same time though. jennings had 2 points of contact with his wrists and then clamped in both of his hands. tate had a hand somewhere insdie jennings chest while the other was holding jennings wrist . while they are falling to the ground tates hand comes away and flails away. this all doesn't matter because jennings had the ball at this point in his chest with both his arms around it. tate had a hand on it maybe and another wrapped around jennings trying to struggle away the ball when they are already down.
Tate NEVER had posesion or anything resembling it. you don't need 2 hands for it but you better at least show that you have 1. What happens after they hit the ground doesn't matter when one of them never was anywhere near having the ball up until that point. Everyone watching it at home even drunk off their ass could see who caught the ball. The refs thought that anything touching the ball counts as partial possession and thus ruled for the passing team.
|
On September 28 2012 11:25 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 11:07 Jerubaal wrote:
I'm not speaking for myself, I'm describing your behavior. Not sure whether I'm supposed to take you seriously. Thanks for telling me the true meaning behind my actions though. And here I thought I knew myself.
I don't need to know your individual motivations to explain behavior in aggregate.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 28 2012 11:36 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 11:25 Souma wrote:On September 28 2012 11:07 Jerubaal wrote:
I'm not speaking for myself, I'm describing your behavior. Not sure whether I'm supposed to take you seriously. Thanks for telling me the true meaning behind my actions though. And here I thought I knew myself. I don't need to know your individual motivations to explain behavior in aggregate.
You kinda do need to know my individual motivation when you tell me you're describing my behavior.
|
On September 28 2012 11:45 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 11:36 Jerubaal wrote:On September 28 2012 11:25 Souma wrote:On September 28 2012 11:07 Jerubaal wrote:
I'm not speaking for myself, I'm describing your behavior. Not sure whether I'm supposed to take you seriously. Thanks for telling me the true meaning behind my actions though. And here I thought I knew myself. I don't need to know your individual motivations to explain behavior in aggregate. You kinda do need to know my individual motivation when you tell me you're describing my behavior.
I'm not saying any individual opinion is invalid, though. I'm saying that collectively the behavior is irrational.
That's the problem: Everyone thinks that their individual motivations and opinions are justified but in aggregate it's irrational. That's why everyone loves their district's congressman and thinks Congress sucks.
|
i did not think trent richardson would be this good
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 28 2012 11:50 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 11:45 Souma wrote:On September 28 2012 11:36 Jerubaal wrote:On September 28 2012 11:25 Souma wrote:On September 28 2012 11:07 Jerubaal wrote:
I'm not speaking for myself, I'm describing your behavior. Not sure whether I'm supposed to take you seriously. Thanks for telling me the true meaning behind my actions though. And here I thought I knew myself. I don't need to know your individual motivations to explain behavior in aggregate. You kinda do need to know my individual motivation when you tell me you're describing my behavior. I'm not saying any individual opinion is invalid, though. I'm saying that collectively the behavior is irrational. That's the problem: Everyone thinks that their individual motivations and opinions are justified but in aggregate it's irrational. That's why everyone loves their district's congressman and thinks Congress sucks.
Okay, look, I'm going to address your argument.
@andrewlt- Angling for a job at ESPN? I guess my question is "what do you want him to do?". Or better yet, ask yourself the question "Is there any possible explanation that I would not complain about?". i.e. is there any possible situation where you would not complain about the NFL (the answer is no). I'm not defending the NFL or Goodell, but it seems that people are mad that their fantasyland bubble was burst (Because tbh, people weren't up in arms because of bad calls, they were up in arms because they now felt justified in complaining.) regardless of what the actual circumstances are.
This is a total red herring and I'm having a hard time seeing your point. It does not matter if there is any possible situation where the NFL would be free of complaints or not. If there is something that is worth the complaint, then it deserves the complaint, and some issues are obviously worse and deserve even harsher scrutiny. What's so irrational about that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Please clarify.
And for your Congress example, that seems totally rational to me. Congress as a system/entity and my Congresswoman as an individual are two entirely different things. Are you telling me I'm supposed to love Congress if I love my Congresswoman?
|
Kruger you so crazy. Great game!
|
Hey guys i didn't watch the game tonight so can somebody tell me how did the refs do today?
|
On September 28 2012 13:10 Damiani wrote:
Hey guys i didn't watch the game tonight so can somebody tell me how did the refs do today?
They performed well, all of the calls seemed to be spot on. Kept control of the game, and it ended on time. Was refreshing, as well as good play by both teams. Not the slaughter I thought it would be.
|
im trying to sell andre brown high in my fantasy leagues.
andre brown & kenny britt for calvin johnson (his only good player) hes 0-3
andre brown & michael turner for ray rice
both these trades are good for me right?
how about this trade:
andy dalton, andre brown, michael turner for aaron rodgers.
i have ap, jamaal charles, brandon lloyd, steve johnson, fred davis, kenny britt, shaun draugn, ronnie hillman, jacoby jones
this is a 16 team league, and my team is pretty beast. i have one of the best teams in the league so i want to trade my depth for starters. agree or disagree?
the guy who has rodgers has tashard choice, joquie bell, vincent jackson, kevin ogletree, jeremy maclin, antonio gates. his team is awful and needs starting players
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 28 2012 13:24 aBstractx wrote:
im trying to sell andre brown high in my fantasy leagues.
andre brown for demaryius thomas
andre brown & michael turner for ray rice
both these trades are good for me right?
how about this trade:
andy dalton, andre brown, michael turner for aaron rodgers.
i have ap, jamaal charles, brandon lloyd, steve johnson, fred davis, kenny britt, shaun draugn, ronnie hillman, jacoby jones
this is a 16 team league, and my team is pretty beast. i have one of the best teams in the league so i want to trade my depth for starters. agree or disagree?
the guy who has rodgers has tashard choice, joquie bell, vincent jackson, kevin ogletree, jeremy maclin, antonio gates. his team is awful and needs starting players
What? Who in their right mind would trade Ray Rice for Brown and Turner?
|
The trade for Rodgers looks good for you. As a Rodgers owner myself, I'm not certain I would accept that though. If he is stressed about the performance of Rodgers so far he might. Though that part of the schedule is over with so he should be on the up and up.
Seems a bit low on Rice too, have to remember you really have to pay for 1st round guys. So for him to consider, its really AP+another.
|
yeah im trying to steal on these guys lol  i was really just concerned about the rodgers trade because i am losing a lot of my depth. if charles or ap go down with injuries ill be hurting for sure
|
On September 28 2012 11:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 11:16 Supamang wrote:On September 28 2012 11:10 Sermokala wrote:
if you watch the espn little spot they did about it its pretty simple. The defender had a perfect grab with the ball and brought it to his chest before tate ever had 1 hand on the ball. at the beginning of the catch he had finger tips while yet another packer managed to have a full hand on it. what happened on the ground is irrelevant as tate was never near having anything resembling possession of the ball when it mattered. Show me any point at all when tate had 2 hands on the ball or any influence on where the ball was or was going to be.
How do you not instantly see tates arm flailing well outside of where the ball is. regardless of the offensive pi you can clearly see that tate never had a chance for possession of the ball. First of all, way to completely miss the point of my post. Second, no. Look at the slow motion of ANY of the videos. Both reach the ball at the same time. Also 2 hands isn't a requirement to have control of the ball. Tate always had 1 arm in between the ball and Jennings's chest. In the video I posted you see both land on the ground the ball against Tate's body and Jennings wrestles it out. Jennings probably should have been awarded the interception, but heres the point you COMPLETELY missed from my post. It isn't an obvious call especially if you had to make a judgement call on the field in the heat of the moment without any replays They don't reach the ball at the same time though. jennings had 2 points of contact with his wrists and then clamped in both of his hands. tate had a hand somewhere insdie jennings chest while the other was holding jennings wrist . while they are falling to the ground tates hand comes away and flails away. this all doesn't matter because jennings had the ball at this point in his chest with both his arms around it. tate had a hand on it maybe and another wrapped around jennings trying to struggle away the ball when they are already down. Tate NEVER had posesion or anything resembling it. you don't need 2 hands for it but you better at least show that you have 1. What happens after they hit the ground doesn't matter when one of them never was anywhere near having the ball up until that point. Everyone watching it at home even drunk off their ass could see who caught the ball. The refs thought that anything touching the ball counts as partial possession and thus ruled for the passing team.
Dude...youre obviously not going to review the pictures or the videos. I went from thinking it was a touchdown when the pass went down, then 2 minutes later to being embarrassed that my Hawks got a win when they clearly got the ball intercepted. Next day, I see all the slow motion videos and pictures and I think their initial field call was plausible. Again, for the last time, watch the video at full speed, pretend youre the refs seeing it for the first time and come up with a decision. No bias allowed. Then look at all the slow motion videos at all the angles. If you still think theres CLEAR and CONCLUSIVE proof to overturn the decision on the field and that Tate didn't have his hands on the ball to say he had some sort of possession, come back and show me.
Some other things..."control" is never defined in the rulebook. It doesn't have to be this magical, arbitrary "50/50 control" for it to be simultaneous possession. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I'm saying this because I really dont believe youre arguing with complete honesty. I dont believe anyone whos being honest with themselves can say they dont see Tate's hand in there from the start. And look at the "new angle" video I posted. It shows that Jennings did NOT have the ball to his chest like everyone was saying. In fact, it was him ripping it away from Tate immediately as they struggle on the ground
Edit: Bleh none of this even matters anymore, the refs are back and they showed their competence in the Ravens Browns game
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
