|
I think we really need to all get on the same page with this. We need to pick one and stick with it. Is he All Day, or AD? or is he AP as per his initials. PJ is lame, even though he is clad in purple and displays running qualities that would make the messiah envious. I vote for AP, but we need a consensus.
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Bashez posted:A bunch of idiots get motivated when they think someone isn't giving them enough respect so coaches feed this poo poo like crazy to motivate people. Belichick is really good at this. This goes hand in hand with bulletin board material. If someone says something like "oh yeah we feel like we can score a touchdown against them and hopefully our defense will carry us" you blow that poo poo up and post "oh yeah we feel like we can score" somewhere the defense will see it all the time and then post "our defense will carry us" so that the offense gets angry too. After that you see if you can't suss out some signals from your video, while listening to some Bon Jovi. Yes. Then your lovely team loses, and doesn't even make the playoffs. It's easy to talk poo poo in that case. Clearly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
KettleWL posted:lives by the tenants of the faith he preaches So when you have land or an apartment to rent, you have tenants. Tenants are the people who are renting from you. When you have faith in a creed of some kind, there are principles that are generally held to be true by those adhering to that creed. These principles are called tenets. He lives by the tenets of the faith he preaches. I don't think he's renting out his mind to his creed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:Pure insect vomit, and not tree sap byproduct is what has fueled generations of players. I think he was alleging the substitution of corn, not maple, syrup. Maple syrup is actually another thing widely replaced dishonestly with corn syrup. If anything maple syrup is more expensive than honey, so there are no companies out there sneaking maple syrup into honey. Corn syrup on the other hand, is cheap as loving dirt, so it's in everything.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In order to be considered in control of the ball, the rules state that the receiver must make a "football move" (whatever the hell that is) after catching it, so as to demonstrate that they themselves consider the ball caught and are now going to run, pivot, jump, or whatever to further progress the ball down the field. I am not convinced that this 'football move' language is actually in the rulebook. Here is the only thing I could find: “A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).” So we have 'an act common to the game' which is then further defined parenthetically. Seems like a quibble, but to me 'an act common to the game' is different from 'a football move'. Somehow. This 'second act' I'm pretty sure is some bullshit that one particular referee used in an explanation literally one time, and now we're all cursed with it. It seems to me that the rules governing possession after a catch are the least understood, and even worse, most widely MIS-understood, (with great conviction of course) by everyone. Especially announcers. I would love to hear from Trin. Detiorata made a good explanation except for that one unfortunate phrase, and his explanation accords with my tortured understanding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
I'm saying that those words don't appear in the rulebook, and that other, slightly different words do appear. It's not a personal attack on you. I just think that greater understanding becomes more likely when the text of the actual rules is known. This greater understanding then leads to more useful discussion. 'An act common to the game' has a more precise scope than 'a football move'. It is clearer language. We can see how a lack of clarity persists and is magnified in your post that I was replying to, where you write about how 'the rules state ..."a football move"...' So you put 'a football move' in quotes as though it came straight out of the rulebook, which it does not. Now you say that this is a handy way for announcers to clarify the difficult 'legalese' of the actual words 'act common to the game'. Which leaves the question of why you characterized it as coming from the rulebook and put it in quotes since you seem to know that this isn't the case. But leaving aside your manifest duplicity, I still think that 'an act common to the game' is more easily and narrowly defined than 'a football move'. It's still pretty muddy though, and we can see why that one ref (I think it was Steratore) brought up this 'second act', and also this 'element of time' we keep hearing about. It's basically a big loving mess and I'm pretty sure it's going to stay that way. Larch fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In order to be considered in control of the ball, the rules state that the receiver must make a "football move" (whatever the hell that is) after catching it, so as to demonstrate that they themselves consider the ball caught and are now going to run, pivot, jump, or whatever to further progress the ball down the field. So there's your post. Your exact words are 'the rules state that the receiver must make a "football move"' 2 posts later you admit that it's a colloquialism, and now a euphemism. Regardless of which of those two things you think it is, it clearly is NOT the wording of the actual rule. The actual wording is murky enough, and what I'm saying is that it's clarity is in no way enhanced through this alteration. Commentators are great, they can add drama like Gus, or show you things you may have missed like Madden used to do and like Collinsworth and Mayock and Gruden try to do now. They can offer interesting historical anecdotes illustrating this or that, or simply report facts about current players or coaches that you may not have known, and all of this is great. One thing that I don't think they do very well at all, is clarify rules. Why you would choose to use their phrase and then cling to it is a complete mystery to me. And I choose to quibble over it because this rule keeps coming up, and I have begun to feel as though nobody has any idea what the gently caress they're talking about when they talk about it, which is very irritating but also amusing. I intend to keep quibbling about it. You should think about using the language from the rulebook when you write 'the rules state', and when you want to write about what the commentators say, then write 'the commentators state'. That is called clarity. None of this is helping us get closer to an understanding of when exactly possession of the ball is determined to exist after the act of a catch. Again the actual alleged text is: “A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).” So I guess the real confusion stems from 'long enough' and it is from these two words that the phrase 'an element of time' originates. I keep hearing about this element of time and this must be why. An element of time long enough for an act common to the game to be performed. Thinking about this language it's easy to see how we get to 'a second act' and 'a football move'. It's entirely too subjective in my opinion. It seems like simply defining 'long enough' as 2 seconds or something would remove all confusion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 07:11
|
|