+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: That was a disco move, not a football move.... (/Thread-That-was-a-disco-move-not-a-football-move)
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Peyton - 12-30-2010 12:30 AM
(12-29-2010 11:21 AM)Expat Bachelor Wrote: Mike Cary is black, isn't he? How could he get him mixed up with Hocculi?
And yes, I agree the rules for making a valid reception are too convoluted. They need to go back to the way it was before, because it never used to be this confusing
LOL well I can't answer that. But...I did watch the game, and I am pretty sure Mike Cary was the referree.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 12-30-2010 03:49 PM
I'm still fuming about the double-PI rules. If both players commit PI by essentially wrestling with each other, & one of them still catches the ball, the entire play is negated & the down played over. That's complete bullshit because it's supposed to be offsetting when in reality, one side is losing their ass. If the DB intercepts it, he loses a huge turnover. If the WR catches it, he loses yardage & potential 1st down. Instead of negating the entire play & down, to make it REALLY offsetting, they should simply let the outcome of the play stand. That's how you make it fair.
What happened to Roddy the other night cost us 20 yards, a 1st down, & a huge momentum swing. It cost the Saints absolutely nothing. There was no "offset" about it.
And the other one is the PI in the endzone. It should be an automatic TD, period.
Those are 2 of the most horribly written rules IMO.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Anomaly - 12-30-2010 03:56 PM
(12-30-2010 03:49 PM)Beef Wrote: I'm still fuming about the double-PI rules. If both players commit PI by essentially wrestling with each other, & one of them still catches the ball, the entire play is negated & the down played over. That's complete bullshit because it's supposed to be offsetting when in reality, one side is losing their ass. If the DB intercepts it, he loses a huge turnover. If the WR catches it, he loses yardage & potential 1st down. Instead of negating the entire play & down, to make it REALLY offsetting, they should simply let the outcome of the play stand. That's how you make it fair.I agree with everything except the PI in the endzone stuff.
What happened to Roddy the other night cost us 20 yards, a 1st down, & a huge momentum swing. It cost the Saints absolutely nothing. There was no "offset" about it.
And the other one is the PI in the endzone. It should be an automatic TD, period.
Those are 2 of the most horribly written rules IMO.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 12-30-2010 04:14 PM
(12-30-2010 03:56 PM)Va Falcon 88 Wrote: I agree with everything except the PI in the endzone stuff.
Why?
If PI is committed in open field, the ball is placed at the spot of the foul because the assumption is that the receiver would have caught it right there if not for the interference, whether he would have or not.
On kick returns, if there's a block in the back, the ball is marked at the spot of the foul because the assumption is that this player would have tackled the ball carrier right there if not for the interference.
If a QB is in the endzone trying to pass & he gets sacked, it's a safety. And if he throws the ball away with no receiver around, it's intentional grounding & still a safety.
The current PI in the endzone rule not only benefits the defensive team, but it gives them incentive to purposely cause interference. Imagine if your team is on the 1 yard line ALREADY & you try to throw the ball 10x in a row with the defensive team getting charged with PI every play because why not? They've got nothing to lose as it's already on the 1 yard line. Granted, it's automatic 1st down every time, but so what. The odds are like 99% they're going to score anyways UNLESS they fumble or throw and interception.
It's artificially giving an advantage to the defense either way you slice it, no matter how insignificant. Because our game Monday night was proof positive of this. And saying Jenkins may not have caught the ball isn't an argument since he might have caught it just as well.
This just isn't normally an issue because probably 999 other times out of 1000, the team put on the 1 yard line scores & doesn't fumble into a turnover. But that doesn't change the fact it's a stupid rule.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 12-30-2010 04:26 PM
(12-30-2010 03:49 PM)Beef Wrote: I'm still fuming about the double-PI rules. If both players commit PI by essentially wrestling with each other, & one of them still catches the ball, the entire play is negated & the down played over. That's complete bullshit because it's supposed to be offsetting when in reality, one side is losing their ass. If the DB intercepts it, he loses a huge turnover. If the WR catches it, he loses yardage & potential 1st down. Instead of negating the entire play & down, to make it REALLY offsetting, they should simply let the outcome of the play stand. That's how you make it fair.
What happened to Roddy the other night cost us 20 yards, a 1st down, & a huge momentum swing. It cost the Saints absolutely nothing. There was no "offset" about it.
And the other one is the PI in the endzone. It should be an automatic TD, period.
Those are 2 of the most horribly written rules IMO.
Offsetting penalties have always called for a replay of the down and pass interference in the end zone has been ball at the one as long as I can remember. Everyone plays by the same rules. Just because it didn't go your way does it mean the rule is horrible or wrong.
What if Roddy had fumbled the ball after the catch and the Saints recovered. Would you still be crying for the offsetting penalties to not force replay of the down? Of course not. You would be screaming to have the play over.
Also, the fact is that pass interference in the end zone can result in a TD as long as the receiver catches the ball. But, for sake of argument, what if Meachem was being covered by Grimes and as they entered the end zone Grimes grabs Meachem's arm. The ball goes about two feet outside of Meachem's reach. There is no way to tell if he would have been able to haul it in. In fact, chances are he wouldn't. According to the rules the following is deemed pass interference:
© Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
According to your logic Meachem should be awarded a touchdown because of pass interference in the end zone. That would have gone over like the proverbial turd in a punch bowl around here, wouldn't it?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 12-30-2010 04:30 PM
(12-30-2010 04:14 PM)Beef Wrote: The current PI in the endzone rule not only benefits the defensive team, but it gives them incentive to purposely cause interference. Imagine if your team is on the 1 yard line ALREADY & you try to throw the ball 10x in a row with the defensive team getting charged with PI every play because why not? They've got nothing to lose as it's already on the 1 yard line. Granted, it's automatic 1st down every time, but so what. The odds are like 99% they're going to score anyways UNLESS they fumble or throw and interception.
Got to call you on this one, too. The rule states:
The penalty for defensive pass interference is an automatic first down at the spot of the foul. If interference is in the end zone, it is first down for the offense on the defense’s 1-yard line. If previous spot was inside the defense’s 1-yard line, penalty is half the distance to the goal line.
You see, each infraction would shorten the distance to the goal by half.
Here's a link to pass interference rules.
Pass Interference
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - V Chip - 12-30-2010 04:31 PM
(12-30-2010 03:49 PM)Beef Wrote: Instead of negating the entire play & down, to make it REALLY offsetting, they should simply let the outcome of the play stand. That's how you make it fair.Disagree on both.
And the other one is the PI in the endzone. It should be an automatic TD, period.
The only "fair" outcome of offsetting penalties is to replay the down with no yardage marked off. Would you feel the same had Greer intercepted it and returned it for a TD? If there was a blocked field goal and offsetting penalties (offsides and hands to the face for instance), the play should stand?
Interference in the end zone doesn't mean that a catch was definitely going to be made. In this case it sure looked like it would, but ask Steve Johnson about assuming even a perfectly thrown ball will be caught in the end zone. Spotting at the 1 is the fairest move.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 12-30-2010 04:39 PM
(12-30-2010 04:14 PM)Beef Wrote: This just isn't normally an issue because probably 999 other times out of 1000, the team put on the 1 yard line scores & doesn't fumble into a turnover. But that doesn't change the fact it's a stupid rule.
Your logic is faulty here, as well. The Falcons had scored 101 out of 102 times in this situation before that, but how many of those scores were field goals. I'll assure you that a material portion of them were. How is it fair to award seven points for what may have been only three?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 12-30-2010 05:00 PM
You guys sure are doing a lot of "WHAT IF", which is completely irrelevant.
That's not how it should work. The fact that none of us is psychic & will never know "IF" a PI in the endzone would have been a catch or not is the entire point. That's why it should be a TD. Not making it a TD is artificially giving an advantage to the defender. It's futile to argue that point with "what ifs".
It's no different than saying "What if McClure didn't muff that snap?". We'll never know what would have happened, so it's irrelevant. And the ruling for this penalty gives a clear & irrefutable advantage to the defending team. Which is wrong.
Radical: "You see, each infraction would shorten the distance to the goal by half."
So? The penalty still doesn't put them in the endzone, does it? My point stands, if you chose to keep passing the ball, the defending team could continue to purposely cause PI until the refs are having to break out microscopes to place the football half the distance to the goal (completely unrealistic, I know, so don't be an ass & go down that road). The fact that the offense is forced to run another play equates to a clear advantage for the defender. Hmmm, TD or they have to run another play? Defender says, "I'll take them running another play on the slim chance something crazy happens!".
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 12-30-2010 05:11 PM
(12-30-2010 04:39 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Your logic is faulty here, as well. The Falcons had scored 101 out of 102 times in this situation before that, but how many of those scores were field goals. I'll assure you that a material portion of them were. How is it fair to award seven points for what may have been only three?
Errr, because "IF" not for the PI that put them on the 1 yard line, the receiver "may have" caught the ball & scored a TD resulting in 7 points, and the field goal scenerio never would have even happened, that's why.
But again, it's impossible to know that. So instead of penalizing the defense fully, the defense gets another shot. That shouldn't be right.
Clearly this has gone above your head or something, especially when you think you're being more "logical" bringing up TD's vs. FG's after a PI in the endzone call. Those things are completely irrelevant.
AGAIN, the point is the defense gets another shot after what very well could have been a TD & that's throwing them a huge bone while potentially screwing the offense out of a TD.