+- 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.... - Beef - 12-31-2010 09:03 PM
(12-31-2010 02:52 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: 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.
Ok, first of all we're on 2 seperate arguments now & you're trying to combine them.
A) I hate the fact that double-PI even exists, but because it does & can be called, I have an opinion about how the rules surrounding that work & I disagree with them because they are supposed to be "offsetting" yet the end result is not fair or equal in any way... as the rule works now.
B) If it were up to me, double-PI wouldn't even be possible because whomever is FIRST called for PI, whether it's offensive or defensive, then that should dictate what's relevant or possible for the rest of the play.
If the WR initiates PI, then an offensive gain on that play is no longer a possibility, period. If the DB recovers & intercepts the ball still, then it's a turnover for the defense. But if there's no turnover, then the O-PI penalty rules kick in as usual. This is how I believe it would be fair if it worked like this.
If the DB initiates PI, then it should work just like any other defensive PI. Meaning +yardage for the offense of some form, whether from spot of foul or marked from LoS or the option to decline it if there's still a catch & YAC. It doesn't make sense that the defender should be allowed to keep defending the play after improperly puting himself in a better position to defend & prevent a catch. So if the WR, after the DB has already committed interference, subsequently pushes the DB out of the way & makes the catch still, then so be it. You see, the DB shouldn't be there anyways & his infraction takes away his right to defend the pass. THIS is what I believe is fair.
Again, chronology of the infraction is the key here. And of course, the boundaries for PI are a factor as well. Meaning the ball has to be in the air & in a trajectory towards the players in question or any penalty called would have to be something other than PI, such as illegal contact before the actual pass, which is treated differently than PI.
Another reason why I believe the play the other night was jacked up. They called double-PI when the ball wasn't even in the air yet.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 12-31-2010 09:05 PM
(12-31-2010 08:49 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: 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.
You sure keep trying to back out of this by acting as if you're right because I'm unreasonable or not rationale.
Here, I can do that too....
You lose because you're wrong & can't grasp any of this. There, now I've proclaimed myself the winner too.
Shall we go on now?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Greg M - 12-31-2010 10:32 PM
WOW !
I do believe Beef my Bro that offset and a "do the down over" is the ONLY fair way a Double PI call can be delt with, you never lost it if you never woulda had it. get it ?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 12-31-2010 11:52 PM
(12-31-2010 09:03 PM)Beef Wrote: Ok, first of all we're on 2 seperate arguments now & you're trying to combine them.
A) I hate the fact that double-PI even exists, but because it does & can be called, I have an opinion about how the rules surrounding that work & I disagree with them because they are supposed to be "offsetting" yet the end result is not fair or equal in any way... as the rule works now.
B) If it were up to me, double-PI wouldn't even be possible because whomever is FIRST called for PI, whether it's offensive or defensive, then that should dictate what's relevant or possible for the rest of the play.
If the WR initiates PI, then an offensive gain on that play is no longer a possibility, period. If the DB recovers & intercepts the ball still, then it's a turnover for the defense. But if there's no turnover, then the O-PI penalty rules kick in as usual. This is how I believe it would be fair if it worked like this.
If the DB initiates PI, then it should work just like any other defensive PI. Meaning +yardage for the offense of some form, whether from spot of foul or marked from LoS or the option to decline it if there's still a catch & YAC. It doesn't make sense that the defender should be allowed to keep defending the play after improperly puting himself in a better position to defend & prevent a catch. So if the WR, after the DB has already committed interference, subsequently pushes the DB out of the way & makes the catch still, then so be it. You see, the DB shouldn't be there anyways & his infraction takes away his right to defend the pass. THIS is what I believe is fair.
Again, chronology of the infraction is the key here. And of course, the boundaries for PI are a factor as well. Meaning the ball has to be in the air & in a trajectory towards the players in question or any penalty called would have to be something other than PI, such as illegal contact before the actual pass, which is treated differently than PI.
Another reason why I believe the play the other night was jacked up. They called double-PI when the ball wasn't even in the air yet.
I have a wonderful idea, Beef. Why don't you start your own football league and make up your own rules that please you and then you'll be all warm and fuzzy. I can see it now. The BFL! Beef Football League! That way you can have as many of these situational dependent plays you want. Heck, you can probably even have a clause where you can change them at halftime if they don't seem to be going your way.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-01-2011 09:34 AM
(12-31-2010 10:32 PM)Greg M Wrote: WOW !
I do believe Beef my Bro that offset and a "do the down over" is the ONLY fair way a Double PI call can be delt with, you never lost it if you never woulda had it. get it ?
Well I don't believe that's fair, but that's just my opinion, you have yours.
Doing the down over makes the last play ridiculously lopsided with regards to punishment for the 2 infractions & that doesn't seem right to me. One side benefitted greatly & the other got totally screwed on what's supposed to be equal punishment.
I'm sure that if Greer would have intercepted the ball & it was reveresed because of the ruling, that all of bagheadville would have raised holy hell about how they got screwed too. And I'd be sitting here saying I agree with them.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-01-2011 09:35 AM
(12-31-2010 11:52 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I have a wonderful idea, Beef. Why don't you start your own football league and make up your own rules that please you and then you'll be all warm and fuzzy. I can see it now. The BFL! Beef Football League! That way you can have as many of these situational dependent plays you want. Heck, you can probably even have a clause where you can change them at halftime if they don't seem to be going your way.
LOL, you're a sore loser. Figures.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Greg M - 01-01-2011 12:14 PM
(01-01-2011 09:34 AM)Beef Wrote: Well I don't believe that's fair, but that's just my opinion, you have yours.
Doing the down over makes the last play ridiculously lopsided with regards to punishment for the 2 infractions & that doesn't seem right to me. One side benefited greatly & the other got totally screwed on what's supposed to be equal punishment.
I'm sure that if Greer would have intercepted the ball & it was reversed because of the ruling, that all of bagheadville would have raised holy hell about how they got screwed too. And I'd be sitting here saying I agree with them.
Well so, going by that logic either side has the potential to lose out depending on the play in question, thus making a do over fair, right ?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-01-2011 01:27 PM
(01-01-2011 09:34 AM)Beef Wrote: Well I don't believe that's fair, but that's just my opinion, you have yours.
Doing the down over makes the last play ridiculously lopsided with regards to punishment for the 2 infractions & that doesn't seem right to me. One side benefitted greatly & the other got totally screwed on what's supposed to be equal punishment.
I'm sure that if Greer would have intercepted the ball & it was reveresed because of the ruling, that all of bagheadville would have raised holy hell about how they got screwed too. And I'd be sitting here saying I agree with them.
You are incredible. In my 45+ years of following football I couldn't count how many times offsetting penalties have resulted in a positive play for my team being called back. You are the first person in my life that I have ever seen their panties get in such a wad over it, though. I have no doubt it is sour grapes. You are obviously grasping for some straw to explain why your team lost. I can assure you that New Orleans fans wouldn't be raising holy hell if it had been the other way around. They would have simply accepted it as part of the game.
The same rule applies in college ball and in high school. You are unreal.
Does anyone out there think that Beef is making any sense?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-01-2011 02:08 PM
(01-01-2011 01:27 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: In my 45+ years of following football I couldn't count how many times offsetting penalties have resulted in a positive play for my team being called back.
Because double-PI is UNIQUE, as I've stated several times now. This entire circumstance of one side getting screwed & the other benefitting from what are supposed to be equal punishment can only happen on double-PI.
You keep making tons of assumptions & personal attacks at me so you can sidestep the point of the argument now that you know you don't have one anymore.
You're not going to convince anyone that this penalty resulted in a fair outcome & it wouldn't no matter if it's a WR catch or a DB interception.
The outcome of the game has nothing to do with our debate. The debate is that the penalty isn't fair & you seem to think that unequal punishment is somehow fair, which is moronic.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-01-2011 03:13 PM
(01-01-2011 02:08 PM)Beef Wrote: Because double-PI is UNIQUE, as I've stated several times now. This entire circumstance of one side getting screwed & the other benefitting from what are supposed to be equal punishment can only happen on double-PI.
You keep making tons of assumptions & personal attacks at me so you can sidestep the point of the argument now that you know you don't have one anymore.
You're not going to convince anyone that this penalty resulted in a fair outcome & it wouldn't no matter if it's a WR catch or a DB interception.
The outcome of the game has nothing to do with our debate. The debate is that the penalty isn't fair & you seem to think that unequal punishment is somehow fair, which is moronic.
You are wrong. Offsetting penalties that call back a big play can happen at anytime and are not only on pass interferences calls. Last year I saw a game where a defender jumped off sides. The QB started scrambling knowing he had a free play. He threw it deep and it resulted in about a 50 yard TD, if I remember correctly. Well, during his scramble an offensive lineman had worked his way too far down field and was flagged. The penalties offset, the TD was nullified and the play had to be run again.
Big plays can happen on any instance of offsetting penalties, not just PI.
Somehow you think that there is some sort of unequal punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth. As soon as the second of the penalties is called anything that happens after that point is be considered to be null and void. A 20 yard gain hadn't actually occurred because it had already been negated. An intercept shouldn't count because the play is effectively dead once an offsetting penalty occurs. It can't be more fair than that.
By saying that I am not going to convince anyone, you are in fact saying I am not going to convince you. Others do not need convincing. Two other posters have already agreed that your logic is just plain wrong.
This brings to mind a quote from the former Secretary of the Treasury, William McAdoo. He said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." By ignorant, he did not mean the opponent was stupid, but that he "ignored" fact and would dig in his heels and maintain his position even when the burden of fact weighed heavily against him.