That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Printable Version
+- 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.... - AsylumGuido - 01-01-2011 03:16 PM
I repeat my plea to the members of the board here. Does anyone here feel that Beef's argument is logical? Anyone? And if so, why?
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-01-2011 04:17 PM
(01-01-2011 03:13 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: 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.
Wrong, your example is not the same as double-PI. That lineman down field is a completely different infraction than the offsides.
Like I said, you're just not grasping what I'm saying. Or rather, you're being obnoxiously obtuse & choosing not to, which is likely the case.
Again, my point in double-PI is that the player who has committed the first infraction has essentially taken himself out of eligibility to continue being part of the play because he has improperly put himself in a better position. Therefore it's illogical that he can now be interfered with. Yet according to the current rules, he can be, which is stupid.
In your example, that's just not possible. The lineman down the field is a penalty of it's own & there's no interaction like there is on double-PI where the initial offender is still in the play improperly. And then the punishment's for each side, the +/- yardage, essentially negate each other. Your example works like it should.
And you can keep pleaing for help all you want. This is my opinion & you're not going to change it. I believe that currently double-PI rules are not fair & are very much unequal in punishment, period. Anyone else can say otherwise, but the proof is on my side.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-01-2011 05:04 PM
(12-31-2010 03:05 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: 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.
You have chosen to completely ignore the above. This is what you are saying in the bold passage of your reply below. How in any instance can you see either of these scenarios being fair?
(01-01-2011 04:17 PM)Beef Wrote: Wrong, your example is not the same as double-PI. That lineman down field is a completely different infraction than the offsides.
You have shown absolutely no proof of anything. You can prove something if you address the two scenarios I listed above and explain how both of them are fair considering they both fall totally within the parameters of how you insist the rule should be rewritten.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Radical - 01-01-2011 06:39 PM
Personally, I would be fine if the player that has been interfered with was allowed to do anything necessary to break free of the interference once it has been commited unless it was something that would be considered a personal foul.
Concerning the Roddy White penalty play. I thought it was a little unfair that he was called for PI when the DB had more or less draped himself across Roddy's back. He more or less had to "push off" in order to get free.
As for just more or less commiting a "redo" if both sides commit a penalty, I think it was the proper way to do it. It is the most "fair" way to go about it.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-01-2011 09:38 PM
(01-01-2011 06:39 PM)Radical Wrote: Personally, I would be fine if the player that has been interfered with was allowed to do anything necessary to break free of the interference once it has been commited unless it was something that would be considered a personal foul.
I agree with everything you said except the "redo" being "fair".
The end result of a "redo" here means that one team gets screwed while the other benefits (of course that's only if there was a WR catch or a DB interception). And there's no way around that absolute 100000000% FACT, which is what I've been saying all along. And again, this is really only unique to this double-PI situation because of how it works & exactly how you described it as not making sense.
If a DB is on your back, how else can you get him off of you without using force to do it? So getting called for O-PI because you were trying to get the DB off you is just obsurd.
Now of course, AG will reply saying that we're wrong for feeling this way while having zero rationale for supporting it.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Radical - 01-01-2011 11:52 PM
(01-01-2011 09:38 PM)Beef Wrote: I agree with everything you said except the "redo" being "fair".
I think it is bogus that a WR can get PI called on him for trying to get off a PI'ing DB, and vice verse. However, considering that it did happen, the only way to really make it even would be to either redo the play, make it so that the DPI penalty is tacked on from the spot of the catch with no YAC allowed, or since the DPI penalty was called first(and assuming that his PI didn't come after another act/impact on the defensive player) Roddy wouldn't suffer a penalty at all.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-02-2011 12:01 AM
(01-01-2011 09:38 PM)Beef Wrote: I agree with everything you said except the "redo" being "fair".
Ummm, I think that Radical disagreed with you about the "redo" part. He said it was fair.
Then you say he is supporting your view. He didn't.
You have already changed your argument several times through this thread. Now it appears that you are saying that dual pass interference is unfair when the WR is trying to get the DB off him. That is a far piece from where you started out.
Once again, you have chosen to "ignore" the two scenarios I laid out for you and explain why they are fair even though the meet the terms of your argument. You can repeat your opinion all you want, but until you actually address facts your argument is groundless.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-02-2011 01:03 AM
(01-02-2011 12:01 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Ummm, I think that Radical disagreed with you about the "redo" part. He said it was fair.
I think you're just daft because it's obvious you can't comprehend context.
I didn't say he supported my view about the "redo". In fact, the first line explicitly states we don't agree. Hello, McFly?
It was very clear that Radical & I agree that double-PI in general is a nonsensical call for the reasons we both similarly described, & this is obviously what I was refering to at the end. Hence the second-to-last line explaining the scenerio referrencing what we agree upon.
You should just quit, you're having a really hard time with this.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-02-2011 01:29 AM
(01-02-2011 12:01 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You have already changed your argument several times through this thread. Now it appears that you are saying that dual pass interference is unfair when the WR is trying to get the DB off him. That is a far piece from where you started out.
LOL, no, I certainly have not changed my argument. I've repeated it countless times now. You just keep selectively ignoring it to suit your non-point purely to be confrontational & contradictory.
My arguments from beginning to now:
A) Double-PI punishment is unfair & unequal if either the WR still catches the ball or the DB intercepts the pass. And chronology of the infraction or which one interfered with the other first is a huge factor. And I believe it's unfair because the punishments are supposed to be equal, but they end up not being close to equal as one side benefits & the other side gets hosed big time.
B) I believe that double-PI shouldn't even be possible because it doesn't make sense that a player who has improperly put himself into a better position to make a play is eligible to be interfered upon. If a DB is on a WR's back & the WR MUST forcefully get the DB off him, it doesn't make sense to call O-PI on the WR. And visa versa, if the WR pushes the DB away, it doesn't make sense then that the DB can interfere with the WR while trying to get back in the play because it doesn't make a difference if the WR catches it or not because the play is nullified due to the initial WR O-PI.
Those are & have been my arguments from the beginning. They are unique to PI only because PI happens only for the fractions of a second or two when the ball is in the air & 2 opposing players are interacting with each other.
Now I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree with my opinion & the fact you obviously can't comprehend what I'm saying. But I will continue to defend my opinion when you continuously try to tell me my opinion is wrong while also trying to say that something which resulted in very unequal punishment is still somehow "fair".
My opinion is my opinion, if you don't like it, fine. But stop being so pompous to think that you can tell someone their opinion is wrong. And also stop trying to say something is "fair" when the game Monday night 100% proved that the play in question DID result in very unequal punishment. We lost 20 yards & a 1st down, you lost NOTHING. By freaking definition, that is not equal, thus impossible to be "fair".
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Radical - 01-02-2011 02:00 AM
I think it was fair at the time given the fuckedupedness of the whole situation, but I believe the rule should be rewritten to be more specific for the situation.