Anacybele Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Your first point does make sense, I have to admit. Secondly, that's just it, the ball is just TOUCHING the pylon or line, not actually crossing it. A golf ball isn't actually on the green when it's sitting at the edge. It's at the green edge. So it's still called a chip-in if you hit the ball into the hole from that spot, not a regular score. Thus, it shouldn't be a TD if the ball is only touching the line or the pylon, which are effectively the endzone's edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Well, goodbye to the ineligible receiver rule. I guess John was so salty he had to get the rule taken out of the rulebook altogether?John wasn't salty. That media narrative is second to deflategate in terms of media bullshit. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/14/john-harbaugh-says-problem-with-patriots-plays-was-officiating-mechanics/ Lardarius Webb, Rashaan Melvin, Darian Stewart, and practice squad DB #42348295 cost us that game, not that ineligible receiver crap. I'm not even sure what the rule change was, because the primary gripe had a lot to do with how the refs signaled ineligibility, not the use of the tactic. There's no way they're outlawing ineligible receivers outright, at any rate, because many power running teams use unbalanced run formations which have tight ends line up at right tackle. We used to run them a lot in 2008 and 2009. Edited March 26, 2015 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chococoke Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Oh I know, the Pats basically won the Super Bowl by targeting the worst corner on every team constantly. But you have to admit immediately post game that John was definitely salty. And the new rule bans inelligible receivers outside the tackle box, so power formations will remain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I watched that press conference. John actually took the loss really really well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chococoke Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I just remember him talking about how it was deception and that "nobody had seen that before," despite the fact that Alabama used that exact formation/play to win in OT against LSU earlier this past college season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) ^Yeah, that just sounds like Harbaugh is making excuses. lol On another topic, possibility of games being hosted in Mexico and Germany? Yeeah, no thank you. Mexico, well, maybe that would be okay. They're next door to us, not real far. But too many games outside of the country would take away too many home games. And Germany is far as fuck from here. I should know, I've traveled to and from there and flights to there from even here on the east coast last like a dozen hours and then there's jetlag and other shit. One game in London seems to be just fine. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind at all if our football gained more and more love over the years like that. But there are just too many big problems with hosting more than just one or two games overseas. And god forbid anybody outside the US except maybe Mexico and Canada get their own teams... Canada makes a lot of sense to me, in fact. Their hockey teams already play in our NHL, so yeah. Edited March 27, 2015 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I just remember him talking about how it was deception and that "nobody had seen that before," despite the fact that Alabama used that exact formation/play to win in OT against LSU earlier this past college seasonHe was answering a question about why he went onto the field and took the personal foul, then clarified like two seconds later "that's not why we lost". At any rate, no, what Alabama did against LSU was significantly different than what New England did against us. Alabama actually threw it out to a tackle lined up wide (so they still had 5 linemen), whereas New England only had four linemen on the field. It was definitely a deception and it was definitely something very, very obscure that barely anyone's seen before. It wasn't even an unbalanced formation, it was literally four linemen and a running back declaring ineligible.. http://www.nfl.com/videos/baltimore-ravens/09000d5d81d3822b/Ravens-postgame-press-conference also: http://www.nfl.com/videos/baltimore-ravens/0ap3000000481536/Rapoport-on-NFL-s-ineligible-receiver-rule-change There are four linemen there and they seemed to do something weird with making Vereen ineligible. There is no way this should be legal. The idea was that an eligible receiver was lined up at, effectively, LT and an ineligible receiver split out wide. Vereen declared ineligible and he was split out wide. It was definitely meant to be extremely deceptive, and I don't know how anyone can argue against this. The rule change makes it so that anyone who is ineligible has to line up as, effectively, a tackle or a guard and not a WR. It was definitely abusing a loophole that the competition committee fixed. I'm surprised that it wasn't already in the rule book that they must be lined up between two tackles. It's very strange that the rule only states that the middle 5 on the line are ineligible and the two outside on the line of scrimmage are eligible. It should be telling that the rule change was near unanimous. ^Yeah, that just sounds like Harbaugh is making excuses. lolDon't talk out of your ass if you haven't seen the conference. Edited March 27, 2015 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 Um, I was clearly referring to what chococoke said, and to me, he made it sound like your precious coach was making excuses. Not that I definitely think your precious coach was. So I'll kindly thank you to not be an ass for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I don't think it was for no reason, you still failed to do research to see if it was actually that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 Why did I need to do any research? I said "sounds like" not "he must be" or "he definitely is." If I'd said the latter, then you'd be right, I'd be pulling crap out of my ass because I'd be making incorrect statements due to not doing any research.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chococoke Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Valid points. I mean they outlawed for a reason, right? Though to be fair, on the plays in question the ref literally said "Do not cover number 34" but obviously it was intended as deception (I wasn't arguing against that point at all) Hell, isn't football all about deception? To an extent anyway. I think about the game back in 2006, NE against Miami (the infamous introduction of the wildcat.) That was certainly deception, and it sure as shit worked; check out highlights of that game if you want to see the most unprepared you will ever see a Belichick-coached defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I was arguing that it was less fixed due to deception and more fixed because it was against the spirit of the rule. The rule was intended to allow the unbalanced formations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) Canada makes a lot of sense to me, in fact. Their hockey teams already play in our NHL, so yeah.The NHL is like 55% Canadian and max 20% American. You just have more money to host teams.And the Big 6 was 33% Canadian. So it's not your NHL. Edited March 29, 2015 by Man Bun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 29, 2015 Author Share Posted March 29, 2015 If it's not our NHL, then why are there a lot of American teams in it? Pittsburgh Penguins, Carolina Hurricanes, Boston Bruins, and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwine85 Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 If it's not our NHL, then why are there a lot of American teams in it? Pittsburgh Penguins, Carolina Hurricanes, Boston Bruins, and so on. More population + money = more teams. As far as I'm concerned, it's our NHL. (and by "our" I mean both American and Canadian) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 He just explained it - the majority of the NHL is not American, but the upper class in the US is significantly more wealthy than the upper class in other countries so they can own a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 29, 2015 Author Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) So, the US has more teams, but the NHL isn't American. I still do not see how that works. But this isn't the NHL thread, it's an NFL thread. So let's get back on topic. Edited March 29, 2015 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 So, the US has more teams, but the NHL isn't American. I still do not see how that works. But this isn't the NHL thread, it's an NFL thread. So let's get back on topic. Canada has 35 million people. USA has 300 million. Hence, USA can probably afford to sponsor more teams. However, the vast majority of the players are Canadian.I'm really holding back on any other "thoughts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Ohhh, now I see. That probably explains why the name of the Penguins' goalie is so French. Marc-Andre Fleury. :P And Canadians speak French as well as English, particularly in Quebec. But no matter, go Steelers and Penguins! (I love Fleury too, he's one hell of a goalie!) So, back to the NFL, do you guys want me to start the next thread when draft time comes around, just like last year? Oh, also, I ordered some women's Steelers flip-flops earlier. They were on sale and just $7! Not including shipping and tax, but yeah. Edited March 30, 2015 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 i'll start the next one >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Er, why, exactly? What difference would it make? If it has anything to do with me being a Steelers fan, then that's honestly ridiculous. If not though, well, maybe I'll let you. Though, I've been doing it for like three years now... I kind of enjoy it. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 ^Yeah, that just sounds like Harbaugh is making excuses. lol On another topic, possibility of games being hosted in Mexico and Germany? Yeeah, no thank you. Mexico, well, maybe that would be okay. They're next door to us, not real far. But too many games outside of the country would take away too many home games. And Germany is far as fuck from here. I should know, I've traveled to and from there and flights to there from even here on the east coast last like a dozen hours and then there's jetlag and other shit. One game in London seems to be just fine. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind at all if our football gained more and more love over the years like that. But there are just too many big problems with hosting more than just one or two games overseas. And god forbid anybody outside the US except maybe Mexico and Canada get their own teams... Canada makes a lot of sense to me, in fact. Their hockey teams already play in our NHL, so yeah. There will actually be 3 games in London this year (Bills/Jaguars, Jets/Dolphins, and Chiefs/Lions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Er, why, exactly? What difference would it make? If it has anything to do with me being a Steelers fan, then that's honestly ridiculous. If not though, well, maybe I'll let you.no, it's because i'll do a lot more things with the actual OP and i won't bias my thread titles towards like two teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) There will actually be 3 games in London this year (Bills/Jaguars, Jets/Dolphins, and Chiefs/Lions). Wait, Bills vs Jaguars? A guy I work with told me they weren't going to show that game on TV at all. To "experiment" he said. It's to try encouraging more people to go to the games. I think it's BS. Just PARKING at a stadium is expensive, let alone game tickets. And there are plenty of people that simply cannot afford to go to even one of their team's games, let alone all 16 plus post-season if their team makes the playoffs. no, it's because i'll do a lot more things with the actual OP and i won't bias my thread titles towards like two teams Ah, doing more things with the OP sounds fair enough. What things are they? I can try doing them too, you know. As for the thread titles, I have no idea what you're talking about. I knew I'd annoy people here if I was too biased, so I tried to be as unbiased as possible. I tried to reference the things I found to be most notable during each week. Honestly, I get where you're coming from here and I'd love to make my OPs better if you've got great advice! Should I post game schedules? Oh, I definitely should update possible playoff scenarios, I bet that's something we'd all like! And of course, I'll try to do better thread titles. Seriously, just tell me what you want and I'll do it! Or, if it's a lot and you think might be too much for me to handle for some reason, I guess I can understand that... Edited March 30, 2015 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chococoke Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I for one don't trust LR with the new thread. Never trust a man who lives somewhere where it snows in late March Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.