That was a disco move, not a football move....

[AsylumGuido]

(12-31-2010 10:07 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  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.

I have also seen it called the other way around where the offensive player pushes off and gains position and then the defender comes back and hits the receiver before the ball gets to him. There is no limit to the number of penalties that can be called on a single play.

[V Chip]

(12-31-2010 03:23 AM)Beef Wrote:  To be honest, I didn't read anything you said past this first paragraph

I knew I was wasting my time with you.

Mea culpa.

[Beef]

(12-31-2010 10:14 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  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.

This has nothing to do with not "liking" a rule, I'm purely talking about logic here (or the lack there of, rather).

If a WR pushes off on a DB to get himself more open & a flag is thrown for O-PI, the play is moot because no matter what happens, it's coming back & can't possibly be ruled a completion for a gain.

So, how is it then possible for that WR to be interfered with? It seems pretty counter-productive to waste time calling interference on someone who can't actually make a bona-fide play.

Are you trying to say that it makes sense to call PI on someone who isn't really eligible to make a bona-fide catch for a gain?

You seem like you just want to ignore what's obvious just so you can argue & belittle from the other side of some e-fence. Do you think this makes you cool or something? Stop going after me & sidestepping the topics. Your e-reputation isn't real.

[Beef]

(12-31-2010 12:32 PM)V Chip Wrote:  I knew I was wasting my time with you.

Mea culpa.

No, it's just that your first paragraph was so off base (yet again), and since the rest of what you said was simply your rationale for the first paragraph, it was a waste of time to read on past the first.

And you STILL haven't grasped the fact that the end result of that play was a huge loss for one side vs. the other, and no matter if it were a WR catch or DB interception, this would have been the case. And for some reason, you can't understand how that's lopsided & wrong.

[AsylumGuido]

(12-31-2010 02:31 PM)Beef Wrote:  This has nothing to do with not "liking" a rule, I'm purely talking about logic here (or the lack there of, rather).

If a WR pushes off on a DB to get himself more open & a flag is thrown for O-PI, the play is moot because no matter what happens, it's coming back & can't possibly be ruled a completion for a gain.

So, how is it then possible for that WR to be interfered with? It seems pretty counter-productive to waste time calling interference on someone who can't actually make a bona-fide play.

Are you trying to say that it makes sense to call PI on someone who isn't really eligible to make a bona-fide catch for a gain?

You seem like you just want to ignore what's obvious just so you can argue & belittle from the other side of some e-fence. Do you think this makes you cool or something? Stop going after me & sidestepping the topics. Your e-reputation isn't real.

So, you are saying that when Roddy pushed off and was called that the play could not have been ruled a completion for a gain? Then, when Greer interfered back it really didn't matter?

This totally goes against your "logic" that those offsetting penalties should have allowed the gain to stand. You are arguing both sides toward the middle and making no sense in doing so.

And, no. I don't give a rat's kahooty about e-reputation. I'm simply trying to make sense out of your totally illogical view of these isolated incidents that you felt like were unfair and thus wrong.

[AsylumGuido]

You are trying to say that if a WR pushes off on a DB that the WR is no longer eligible to make the catch, therefore he should not be able to be interfered with himself. Therefore, the DB can, under your wishful interpretation, be allowed to trip the now ineligible WR and pick off the ball without any danger of penalty.

This is exactly what you have described.

On the other hand, the DB can grab the WR's jersey just after the ball has left the QB's hand thus making him ineligible to make a play. This would allowed either the offended WR or any other player on the offense free reign to take that DB out in any manner they wish and if the catch is made it stands.

This too is exactly what you have described.

If you can explain how this is more fair than offsetting penalties resulting in replay of the down I'll have you defend me if I ever decide to gun someone down in broad daylight.

[V Chip]

(12-31-2010 02:40 PM)Beef Wrote:  No, it's just that your first paragraph was so off base (yet again), and since the rest of what you said was simply your rationale for the first paragraph, it was a waste of time to read on past the first.

And you STILL haven't grasped the fact that the end result of that play was a huge loss for one side vs. the other, and no matter if it were a WR catch or DB interception, this would have been the case. And for some reason, you can't understand how that's lopsided & wrong.

I'm wasting my time again...

Here I'll say it explicitly so you can understand.

I KNOW Roddy caught the ball.
I know it was a gain for the Falcons. I know they lost a huge field position.

It's just that it DOESN'T MATTER.

The second Roddy White committed a penalty, the outcome of the play should not stand (or else the opposing team should be allowed to decide if they want it to stand or not). Whether he was the only one to commit the penalty, whether there were two or more penalties, whether he was the first to commit it or the last. To allow the play to stand when penalties on both teams have been called is ridiculous, and even more so in your only-now-defined special condition penalties (where it's only pass interference called on both teams, and only when those two penalties are committed by player A against player B, and player B against player A). Whatever happened on the play DOESN'T MATTER -- whether it was a 99-yard TD reception, or an interception returned for a TD, or a completed pass for no gain, or an incomplete pass -- for the very reason that Guido mentioned -- the result of the play could be a direct result of the foul.

And the explanation you didn't bother to read explained exactly WHY both teams "lose" something, and that allowing the play to stand effectively says that one of the penalties didn't even happen -- how would it be even remotely fair to wave off one team's penalty and have no reasoning for it? That's absurd! If the play stood, then it would be as if Roddy didn't commit pass interference at all (or, had Greer intercepted it, it would be as if Greer had not committed a penalty). There is absolutely NO logic in that -- NONE.

And with that I'm done. This is like trying to argue with an ideologue -- they have already made up their mind and dismiss anything that doesn't jibe with their worldview, so you can have your "offsetting-pass-interference-penalties-on-the-same-two-players-affected-therefore-the-play-stands"ism.

[AsylumGuido]

(12-31-2010 03:53 PM)V Chip Wrote:  I'm wasting my time again...

Here I'll say it explicitly so you can understand.

I KNOW Roddy caught the ball.
I know it was a gain for the Falcons. I know they lost a huge field position.

It's just that it DOESN'T MATTER.

The second Roddy White committed a penalty, the outcome of the play should not stand (or else the opposing team should be allowed to decide if they want it to stand or not). Whether he was the only one to commit the penalty, whether there were two or more penalties, whether he was the first to commit it or the last. To allow the play to stand when penalties on both teams have been called is ridiculous, and even more so in your only-now-defined special condition penalties (where it's only pass interference called on both teams, and only when those two penalties are committed by player A against player B, and player B against player A). Whatever happened on the play DOESN'T MATTER -- whether it was a 99-yard TD reception, or an interception returned for a TD, or a completed pass for no gain, or an incomplete pass -- for the very reason that Guido mentioned -- the result of the play could be a direct result of the foul.

And the explanation you didn't bother to read explained exactly WHY both teams "lose" something, and that allowing the play to stand effectively says that one of the penalties didn't even happen -- how would it be even remotely fair to wave off one team's penalty and have no reasoning for it? That's absurd! If the play stood, then it would be as if Roddy didn't commit pass interference at all (or, had Greer intercepted it, it would be as if Greer had not committed a penalty). There is absolutely NO logic in that -- NONE.

And with that I'm done. This is like trying to argue with an ideologue -- they have already made up their mind and dismiss anything that doesn't jibe with their worldview, so you can have your "offsetting-pass-interference-penalties-on-the-same-two-players-affected-therefore-the-play-stands"ism.

^^^^^

What he said.

[Beef]

(12-31-2010 03:53 PM)V Chip Wrote:  And the explanation you didn't bother to read explained exactly WHY both teams "lose" something, and that allowing the play to stand effectively says that one of the penalties didn't even happen -- how would it be even remotely fair to wave off one team's penalty and have no reasoning for it? That's absurd! If the play stood, then it would be as if Roddy didn't commit pass interference at all (or, had Greer intercepted it, it would be as if Greer had not committed a penalty). There is absolutely NO logic in that -- NONE.

No, it does NOT say that one of the penalties "didn't even happen", what part of the 2 freaking penalties cancelling each other out do you not MF'ing understand?

O-PI & D-PI cancel each other out. It's pretty gawd damned simple. What's left is what actually happened then. In this case it was a WR catch & offensive gain. However, if it were a defensive interception, then so be it as well. The end result is therefore not an artificial advantage for one side & a huge loss for the other.

The way the rule is setup now, even though the penalties "offset", one side benefits & the other side loses. Which, by definition & pure logic, means it's not fair or equal in any realm of possibility. I can't freaking believe you can't grasp this.

What kills me is that there's 100% proof positive of what I'm saying. The play in question is my evidence for shit sakes. 2 offsetting penalties, yet one side still got screwed & the other benefitted significantly. And you're flat out not going to convince anyone that this is equal punishment, because it's overwhelmingly obvious it's not.

[AsylumGuido]

(12-31-2010 08:30 PM)Beef Wrote:  No, it does NOT say that one of the penalties "didn't even happen", what part of the 2 freaking penalties cancelling each other out do you not MF'ing understand?

O-PI & D-PI cancel each other out. It's pretty gawd damned simple. What's left is what actually happened then. In this case it was a WR catch & offensive gain. However, if it were a defensive interception, then so be it as well. The end result is therefore not an artificial advantage for one side & a huge loss for the other.

The way the rule is setup now, even though the penalties "offset", one side benefits & the other side loses. Which, by definition & pure logic, means it's not fair or equal in any realm of possibility. I can't freaking believe you can't grasp this.

What kills me is that there's 100% proof positive of what I'm saying. The play in question is my evidence for shit sakes. 2 offsetting penalties, yet one side still got screwed & the other benefitted significantly. And you're flat out not going to convince anyone that this is equal punishment, because it's overwhelmingly obvious it's not.

There we go. I hope you do well in the future. You just demonstrated the total lack of reason. I spelled out every scenario you presented and you fail to comprehend. Once again, I wish you well in the future. Personally, that is. I do hope for your sake that your team loses.