(12-30-2010 05:11 PM)Beef Wrote:  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.

(12-30-2010 05:23 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I'm sorry, but just because the long-standing rules did not play into your favor this one time does not mean that the NFL rules are unfair. They didn't throw them together on a bar napkin. In a game played between two entities most every rule will favor one of the two over the other at any given time. If the rules were changed just to appease your most recent "injustice" it is just a matter of time until the "new rule" comes around to bite you in your chapped rear end.

I'm quite sure that emergency meetings have been called at Flowery Branch to mull over these two rules that caused their downfall.

The rules are what they are and what they will remain to be. If you go back into your team's history I assure you that both have benefited the Falcons on multiple occasions.

(12-30-2010 05:00 PM)Beef Wrote:  You guys sure are doing a lot of "WHAT IF", which is completely irrelevant.

(12-30-2010 05:36 PM)Beef Wrote:  Ok, first of all, you're starting to be a pompous ass about this with the sarcasm. You didn't need to go there. I didn't. You can speculate as to my feelings if it was reversed in my favor all you like, but you don't know me & you don't have a freaking clue what my prinicipals are.

I assure you, if the rule was that PI in the endzone = an automatic TD & this hurt my team n+1 times since I became a football fan, I'd be 1000% fine with it because I believe that's the FAIR way that the rule should work. So yes, if Grimes interferes Meachum in your damn endzone & it's an automatic TD, I have no problem with it. I won't like it & I'd probably be ticked at Grimes for doing it, but I would not at all question it being a fair call if it was in fact legitimate PI because Meachum very well could have caught it & scored a TD. There's no good reason that we should get a second chance when we interfered on the first chance & therefore made it impossible to know what really would have happened.

(12-30-2010 05:22 PM)Beef Wrote:  But in this case, there were supposedly offsetting penalties, but only one team got penalized. We lost 20 yards & a 1st down. You lost nothing except maybe an additional down your defense had to play, which pales in comparison to us losing 20 yards & having to replay 3rd & 8.

(12-30-2010 05:43 PM)V Chip Wrote:  You're the one assuming that he would have caught the ball. So "what if" the interference hadn't happened, you assume he catches the ball.

The penalty isn't marked off because they assume the receiver would have caught the ball; the penalty is marked off as a deterrent to interfering with the receiver. Many times interference happens yards away from where the ball and receiver would have come together -- they don't mark it at the spot he might have caught the ball (nor do they mark it where he might have ended up if he did catch the ball, as happens when a player is interfered with and might have caught the ball and continued on for a TD). And you're also assuming that the interference is intentional, when sometimes it isn't. You'd want a TD to be scored because a hand-check in the end zone was called against Grimes where he actually intercepted it?

By your logic, any penalty against the defense near or in the end zone should result in an automatic TD for the offense. If the defense is offsides and stuffs the RB in the backfield, well he might have scored a TD so might as well give them the points?

(12-30-2010 05:57 PM)Beef Wrote:  No I'm not assuming he would have caught the ball. Not sure how many times & ways I have to say that. It's a penalty IN THE ENDZONE, period.

If a QB is charged with intentional grounding while in the endzone, it's a safety. That's a fair pentalty because the QB would have been sacked in the endzone resulting in a safety.

Well why then is it ok to charge a DB with an interference penalty that happened in the endzone, yet give them a second chance at essentially defending against a TD when they committed an offense trying to defend it the first time? It's no different than giving the QB who intentionally grounded the ball another chance to get out of the endzone & not be charged a safety. Which doesn't make sense.

They call PI only when the ball is in the air & in a trajectory that a receiver could have had a chance to catch it. If you commit this offense in the endzone, you've taken away the possibility of it being a TD and then given a second shot at defending it?

No, that doesn't seem fair to me.

(12-30-2010 05:52 PM)V Chip Wrote:  How is it fair? Basically if you have a penalty on the play, the play doesn't count AND you lose yardage. When they offset, the play doesn't count but there is no yardage marked off. You're arguing for the Saints to be penalized even though the offense committed a penalty.

Think of it another way (if the play would stand): say there is an illegal shift on the offense, and a flag is thrown at the start of the play. Now any defensive penalty will allow the play to stand, so DBs can maul the receiver in an attempt to get an interception and know no matter what happens, the play will stand. They can tackle all receivers running routes! They can go for the knees of the QB! Conversely, when a defense jumps offsides, then the OL should just tackle all the DL since the play will stand anyway. That makes no sense.