+- 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 - 01-02-2011 11:16 AM
(01-02-2011 01:29 AM)Beef Wrote: 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".
You did not lose 20 yards and a 1st down. You never had it to begin with. As soon as White committed his pass interference he allowed the opponents to accept the penalty negate the gain. In actuality, had Greer not also committed pass interference the Falcons would have been backed up an additional ten yards.
Your misconception is that "fair" and "equal" are inclusive. This simply isn't true. "fair" and "equal" are mutually exclusive, in life, and in the realm of interference. Offensive pass interference results in a penalty at the point of the infraction, while a defensive version only calls for a ten yard penalty.
fair (fâr)
adj. fair·er, fair·est
1. Of pleasing appearance, especially because of a pure or fresh quality; comely.
2.
a. Light in color, especially blond: fair hair.
b. Of light complexion: fair skin.
3. Free of clouds or storms; clear and sunny: fair skies.
4. Free of blemishes or stains; clean and pure: one's fair name.
5. Promising; likely: We're in a fair way to succeed.
6.
a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.
8. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.
9. Moderately good; acceptable or satisfactory: gave only a fair performance of the play; in fair health.
10. Superficially true or appealing; specious: Don't trust his fair promises.
11. Lawful to hunt or attack: fair game.
12. Archaic Free of all obstacles.
And, before you try to say equitable means equal:
equitable [ˈɛkwɪtəbəl]
adj
1. impartial or reasonable; fair; just an equitable decision
2. (Law) Law relating to or valid in equity, as distinct from common law or statute law
3. (Law) Law (formerly) recognized in a court of equity only, as claims, rights, etc.
[from French équitable, from équité equity]
And as for equity:
eq·ui·ty (kw-t)
n. pl. eq·ui·ties
1. The state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair.
2. Something that is just, impartial, and fair.
3. Law
a. Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness.
b. A system of jurisprudence supplementing and serving to modify the rigor of common law.
c. An equitable right or claim.
d. Equity of redemption.
4. The residual value of a business or property beyond any mortgage thereon and liability therein.
5.
a. The market value of securities less any debt incurred.
b. Common stock and preferred stock.
6. Funds provided to a business by the sale of stock.
[Middle English equite, from Old French, from Latin aequits, from aequus, even, fair.]
As you can see, no where in the definition of "fair" does it say things have to be equal.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-02-2011 11:20 AM
Double pass interference can never be "equal", but the current rules make it as fair as possible since both teams are subject to exactly the same rules, and that by definition makes it fair.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Beef - 01-02-2011 11:38 AM
(01-02-2011 11:16 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You did not lose 20 yards and a 1st down. You never had it to begin with. As soon as White committed his pass interference he allowed the opponents to accept the penalty negate the gain. In actuality, had Greer not also committed pass interference the Falcons would have been backed up an additional ten yards.
Again, you're mistaken as usual because we most certainly did lose 20 yards & a 1st down.
As I've said over & over, chronology of the infraction is a huge factor & Roddy's O-PI obviously occurred AFTER Greer's, considering all Roddy really did was try to get Greer off him. Greer actually should have been called for holding or illegal contact to be honest. Which as I've said should have taken his eligibility to defend the play away, so O-PI should have been impossible to call. And again, this is just my opinion & I belive the end result was unfair & unequal punishment.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-02-2011 12:32 PM
(01-02-2011 11:38 AM)Beef Wrote: Again, you're mistaken as usual because we most certainly did lose 20 yards & a 1st down.
As I've said over & over, chronology of the infraction is a huge factor & Roddy's O-PI obviously occurred AFTER Greer's, considering all Roddy really did was try to get Greer off him. Greer actually should have been called for holding or illegal contact to be honest. Which as I've said should have taken his eligibility to defend the play away, so O-PI should have been impossible to call. And again, this is just my opinion & I belive the end result was unfair & unequal punishment.
I hear what you are trying to say, but you have still not addressed these two scenarios which I have repeatedly asked you about. These both deal with chronology of a play from both perspectives. They both fit your explanation of how you would want a new rule to work. Explain how you feel these would be fair and equal? Until you can do that you haven't defended your point.
Scenario One: 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.
Scenario Two: 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.
I have at no point said things were equal between offense and defense. They are, though, as fair as can be given all factors. That said, application of the rule would be equal given the same circumstance in reverse. Had Colston and Grimes been the players, instead, the call would have, and should have, gone exactly the same way. That is only fair ... and equal.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - Radical - 01-02-2011 01:30 PM
(01-02-2011 12:32 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Scenario One: 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.
Scenario Two: 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.
Scenario 1 - I believe tripping is a personal foul, so no. I believe the DB should be able to push off or rip the WRs arm off his jersey in order to get free though, with penalty of course.
Scenario 2 - No personal fouls and nothing could be done after the DB is no longer interfering with the WR. He would be allowed to push off and knock the DBs hands away.
In both situations, unless a personal foul penalty or an act of interference was made after the initial interference is made, the play would at minimum put the ball at the spot of the foul or the ball would play out as normal so the WR could potentially get YAC or make an INT.
RE: That was a disco move, not a football move.... - AsylumGuido - 01-02-2011 01:44 PM
(01-02-2011 01:30 PM)Radical Wrote: Scenario 1 - I believe tripping is a personal foul, so no. I believe the DB should be able to push off or rip the WRs arm off his jersey in order to get free though, with penalty of course.
Scenario 2 - No personal fouls and nothing could be done after the DB is no longer interfering with the WR. He would be allowed to push off and knock the DBs hands away.
In both situations, unless a personal foul penalty or an act of interference was made after the initial interference is made, the play would at minimum put the ball at the spot of the foul or the ball would play out as normal so the WR could potentially get YAC or make an INT.
Scenario One: 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 grab the jersey of the now ineligible WR and pick off the ball without any danger of penalty.
Scenario Two: 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 push or pull that DB away in any manner they wish and if the catch is made it stands.
Okay, is this better? You knew what I meant. A second infraction that is also a pass interference. The whole argument that Beef is trying to make deals with PI's.
Okay, Beef, now address them.