Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AsylumGuido · (This post was last modified: 12-30-2010 11:10 PM by AsylumGuido.)

(12-30-2010 10:59 PM)Beef Wrote: No, you just can't make a convincing argument that either of those penalties is fair so you're spinning your way out as hard as you can by going personal. Don't you know when it gets personal, it's like sure fire proof you lost the argument?

A) Falcons lost 20 yards & a 1st down on the double-PI while the Saints lost nothing, period. You have yet to make an argument supporting how that's fair. And "well that's just the rules that everyone is subject to" still doesn't prove it's fair & sure as hell still doesn't make the end result equal.

B) Falcons ended up with a turnover on the 1 yard line on what could have been completely avoidable due to a TD 2 plays earlier. Again, the Falcons got screwed while the Saints got a second chance & the end result was a beyond HUGE benefit for the Saints. And you still haven't made an argument supporting how that's fair either.

In the end on both situations, Falcons got screwed & Saints benefitted significantly. And as I've said from the beginning, if the roles would have been reversed, I'd be saying the same things about how you guys got screwed & we benefitted & that I think the rules for those penalties aren't fair. Whether you believe that or not, that's how I feel.

Been there done that more times than I can count as a fan. I have had both go against me. You have your rear end in an uproar because they went against you this week. I have no doubt these two rules were never a concern in your life before Monday.

Once again, bravo on the support for your team. I really do understand that.

Falcons Talk staff,

I just want you to know that none of this debate has anything top do with your fine site. I am not trying at all to degrade your team or your fans. I have no doubt you can interpret the rest on your own.

Look forward to the good people here and good discussion!

Guido

Beef · (This post was last modified: 12-30-2010 11:36 PM by Beef.)

(12-30-2010 10:52 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You just confirmed my point. Those penalties do offset. I'm not sure where you got this "equal level severity" thing from. The penalties offset under the NFL rules.

Okay, I'll make it your way, all "even Steven". The defensive player hits the QB in the head. The flag is thrown for roughing the QB, FELONY!!!! Roddy sees this and grabs the face mask of corner covering him and slings him to the ground, FELONY!!!. He get that same toss and easy catch and prances into the end zone.

Equal severity.

Give it up, dude. You are quickly losing credibility.

Did I not say that chronology was a factor too? And that even though it's now a "free play" as they say, that the offense still has rules to follow? And that PI is unique because it only happens in the short fractions of a second when the ball is in the air?

Yes, I believe I said all those things.

In the end, you cannot convince anyone that the Falcons did not get totally screwed on that double-PI. Nothing you've said makes what the outcome was equal on both sides in any way shape or form. And the same thing goes for the endzone PI. Just because that's how it's always been does not make it fair. And just because it could/would be applied the same way to both sides does not make it fair. The difference between a TD catch & having to run another play (or more) from the 1 yard line are obviously NOT equal propositions. Seriously, which would you rather have? A TD or another set of plays?

Beef · 12-30-2010, 11:35 PM

(12-30-2010 11:08 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You have your rear end in an uproar because they went against you this week. I have no doubt these two rules were never a concern in your life before Monday.

Again, ignorant assumptions on your part, as if you know me when of course you do not. But even if you did, your statement is still irrelevent & doesn't support your argument that the result of those penalties ended with equal and fair results. You're just spinning around it now.

AsylumGuido · 12-30-2010, 11:50 PM

(12-30-2010 11:35 PM)Beef Wrote: Again, ignorant assumptions on your part, as if you know me when of course you do not. But even if you did, your statement is still irrelevent & doesn't support your argument that the result of those penalties ended with equal and fair results. You're just spinning around it now.

I had typed out a response, but had second thoughts (no, not rude, crude or unacceptable in any way) because not worth the time, as much as I enjoy it. It's like trying to pull back that dog from barking up that empty tree. It's best to let him go.

V Chip · (This post was last modified: 12-31-2010 12:59 AM by V Chip.)

(12-30-2010 10:24 PM)Beef Wrote: "... and got away with it." HUH??? In what bizzarro world is that true? How does losing 20 yards & a 1st down = "got away with it"???
...
We lost 20 yards & a 1st down, you lost nothing.
...
How you can call that equal I don't know, but it's not freaking equal.

First off, I was replying to your statement. You said
"That's not penalizing the Saints if offsetting in this circumstance = the catch stood."
Your argument is that, if the rules were changed so that offsetting penalties mean that the play stands, the Saints don't get penalized by those rules. My response is YES THEY DO because the Falcons committed a penalty yet suffered no consequence for it because the play stands. The problem is you are looking at the play as it happened and not considering alternative outcomes (like if the Saints had intercepted; then the Saints would have lost the interception because of offsetting penalties -- exactly as it should be). You say that the Saints benefited significantly more, but that is only because of the outcome of the play -- again, had the Saints intercepted it, then the Saints would have LOST significantly more but the call (offsetting penalties, replay the down) would be right. You see the Falcons getting hosed and then ask me how is that equal. I'm not arguing that it SHOULD be equal, I'm stating that when both teams commit fouls that by rule offset, then the play should NOT stand because that could give an unfair advantage to one team.

I don't know how to make this clearer to you without taking up a lot of space to be very specific.

First, I'll go with the example of the exact play that happened.
1st and 10 at ATL 38 -- M.Ryan pass deep right to R.White pushed ob at NO 33 for 29 yards (D.Sharper). Penalty on ATL-R.White, Offensive Pass Interference, offsetting, enforced at ATL 38 - No Play. Penalty on NO-J.Greer, Defensive Pass Interference, offsetting
Normally if there were only ONE penalty, this would be the outcome:
If the one penalty was against Greer, the Falcons would refuse and the play would stand (1st and 10 at the NO 33)
If the penalty were against White, the Saints would accept, the play would not stand, and the Falcons would be penalized 10 yards and replay the down (1st and 20 at the ATL 28).

Since there are TWO penalties they offset, the play doesn't count, but no yardage is marked off (1st and 10, ATL 38). The Falcons lose the result of the play (because of their penalty) but gain because they do NOT get penalized 10 yards (because of the Saints penalty, the yardage doesn't get enforced); the Saints lose the 10 yard penalty (because of the Saints penalty, the yardage for the Falcons penalty does not get enforced) but gain in that the play does not stand (because of the Falcons penalty). The end result is different than the outcome of both possible single-penalty outcomes listed above (1st and 10 ATL 38 is not the same as 1st and 10 ATL 28 nor 1st and 10 NO 33).

Now, if the play were allowed to STAND as you would like it to be, then the outcome is the exact same thing as if ONLY the Saints had committed the penalty (1st and 10, NO 33). In your proposal, the Falcons committed a penalty that had no bearing at all and there is no option for the Saints to accept the penalty or receive any recourse for the Falcons penalty. That's not right (and not because of the teams involved; even if the example were Team A and Team B it still wouldn't be right). No team should be allowed to commit a penalty without the other team having an option to accept the yardage (unless there are penalties that offset).

To use an example you suggested:
"the beginning of a play, the DB grabs the WR's facemask & a flag is thrown for the facemask, but they continue running & 20 yards down the field the WR pushes the DB down & then catches the ball, what do you think happens?"
Ok, assuming that a flag was thrown when the WR pushed the DB down (and I would hope one is thrown), then the penalties offset and the play is repeated.

In your proposal, the play would stand -- i.e., the WR knew that the first flag had occurred and thus could get away with his offensive pass interference without any consequence. Switch the roles -- if the WR did the facemask at the LoS, and the DB pushed the WR down at the end of the play and intercepted it. You say that the DB should be able to interfere and it not affect the play (since the play will stand) but in reality the penalties will offset and the play will be repeated.

(12-30-2010 10:24 PM)Beef Wrote: Again, NO it does not. Chronology & severity are obvious factors you're choosing to ignore & misinterpret my point to exagerate yours.

Chronology has no bearing if they both happened during a play (i.e., not a dead ball foul). Severity only matters if one is a 5-yard penalty and the other is a 15-yarder in which case the 5-yard penalty is ignored and the 15 yard penalty is enforced (and I didn't make this clear enough initially, so perhaps that is confusing you). Penalties don't have to be the same to offset, nor do they have to have the same yardage to offset (i.e, two 15 yard penalties (facemask and pass interference) offset, and defensive holding (5 yards) and offensive holding (10 yards) offset or offsides (5 yards) and offensive pass interference (10 yards) offset).

**Radical** · 12-31-2010, 02:28 AM

I'm still trying to figure out how you can have a WR and a CB both commit pass interference on each other at the same time.

Beef · 12-31-2010, 03:23 AM

(12-31-2010 12:51 AM)V Chip Wrote: First off, I was replying to your statement. You said
"That's not penalizing the Saints if offsetting in this circumstance = the catch stood."
Your argument is that, if the rules were changed so that offsetting penalties mean that the play stands, the Saints don't get penalized by those rules. My response is YES THEY DO because the Falcons committed a penalty yet suffered no consequence for it because the play stands. The problem is you are looking at the play as it happened and not considering alternative outcomes (like if the Saints had intercepted; then the Saints would have lost the interception because of offsetting penalties -- exactly as it should be). You say that the Saints benefited significantly more, but that is only because of the outcome of the play -- again, had the Saints intercepted it, then the Saints would have LOST significantly more but the call (offsetting penalties, replay the down) would be right. You see the Falcons getting hosed and then ask me how is that equal. I'm not arguing that it SHOULD be equal, I'm stating that when both teams commit fouls that by rule offset, then the play should NOT stand because that could give an unfair advantage to one team.

To be honest, I didn't read anything you said past this first paragraph because clearly you're not reading everything I've written.

And I'm not arguing that all offsetting penalties should = the play stands. I'm ONLY talking about this unique circumstance with double-PI, which in itself is a total bullshit call, but that's yet another debate probably.

I've said at least 3, maybe more times, that If Greer would have intercepted the ball, I would have been fine with the play standing if that was the outcome & the rule worked like that too because I believe that would be the fair decision. I wouldn't be happy about the interception as usual, but I wouldn't complain that the rule isn't fair.

And you're STILL not getting the fact that Roddy caught the pass & had a 20 yard gain + a 1st down. You keep saying that if the play stood that this would be "penalizing" the Saints. But it's not. It's what actually happened on the play for crap sakes. Roddy ran 20 yards & caught a pass for a gain. If your defensive PI cancels out our offensive PI, as if neither happened, what's left is the catch & gain. If no penalties were called, it would have been a successful 20 yard gain, period.

Again, I could give a crap about your interpretation of the rule or definition of "offsetting". From the get-go I've been arguing about the end result of this call ultimately screwing one or the other side (the Falcons if Roddy catches it or the Saints if Greer had intercepted) & that this is not fair. And as said about a dozen times now, the end result was we lost 20 yards + 1st down while the Saints lost nothing. And there's no way you're going to convince anyone that's a fair rule when the penalties are supposed to be equal punishment. One side got shafted & it happened to be us, but very well could have been you.

Beef · 12-31-2010, 03:48 AM

(12-31-2010 02:28 AM)Radical Wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how you can have a WR and a CB both commit pass interference on each other at the same time.

I couldn't agree with you more. Like I said, this could be a whole nother debate with some people I bet.

It just doesn't make any sense at all. Whoever is 1st to interfere is THE rule breaker.

If you intefere as a DB or WR initially, you are now more indefensible & open to catching the ball easier, right? You're basically an illegal or tainted target at this point because you have improperly put yourself in a better position.

So how is it then possible, for the guy who was originally snubbed to now interfere with the guy who shouldn't be in the better position he improperly put himself in? Because it's not like it's OK for the initial PI offender to make the catch & it be ruled a completion.

So the second guy is getting called for a penalty on a guy who wasn't eligible to make a bona-fide completion/interception. And that's just beyond stupid.

AsylumGuido · 12-31-2010, 10:07 AM

(12-31-2010 02:28 AM)Radical Wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how you can have a WR and a CB both commit pass interference on each other at the same time.

They weren't at the same time from what I heard on NFL Sirius radio. You can have a defender grab an arm while the ball is in the air (defensive PI) and then the receiver push off as the ball approaches (offensive PI). That is not the first time I have seen it called. It doesn't happen often, but it does get called occasionally.

AsylumGuido · 12-31-2010, 10:14 AM

(12-31-2010 03:48 AM)Beef Wrote: I couldn't agree with you more. Like I said, this could be a whole nother debate with some people I bet.

It just doesn't make any sense at all. Whoever is 1st to interfere is THE rule breaker.

If you intefere as a DB or WR initially, you are now more indefensible & open to catching the ball easier, right? You're basically an illegal or tainted target at this point because you have improperly put yourself in a better position.

So how is it then possible, for the guy who was originally snubbed to now interfere with the guy who shouldn't be in the better position he improperly put himself in? Because it's not like it's OK for the initial PI offender to make the catch & it be ruled a completion.

So the second guy is getting called for a penalty on a guy who wasn't eligible to make a bona-fide completion/interception. And that's just beyond stupid.

Once again, it comes down to your not liking an NFL rule. Can you show me anywhere where you have expressed your displeasure over these two rules before Monday's game? I would at least then see that it was an existing concern and not one that finely surfaced when something didn't go your way.

I'm sorry, but you are beginning to sound like you have a case of sour grapes.