|
Gene Steratore is a legit ref, maybe that's why the NFL thought he could handle being saddled with the loving worst crew I've seen since the replacement refs were dropped out of a plane somewhere in the middle of the pacific
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:i remember briefly considering buying my Panthers@Falcons tickets early, thinking scalping a pair at 20% face would be hard. I've got a friend with season tickets if you're interested in those. I can see how much they want for them. They're not terrible seats. Lower level corner end zones
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:They went to stop by ehud's cubicle. haha Intruder posted:Wait were there really people in the GDT saying Watkins was down in bounds? I wasn't following it last night Yeah but I just went back and read the discussion and they weren't being dicks at all like my bourbon-addled brain remembers them being, they were just trying to help understand wtf was going on. so it turns out the rear end in a top hat here....... is me NC-17 posted:Which is probably what the official was thinking as well. huh, I thought Mean Gene had been around for a lot longer than 2 years
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Can't afford to pay refs full-time and train the gently caress out of them year-round, no sirree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:Inadvertent whistle may have been a ref getting scared: Obviously all of the misses are unfortunate ones but the White TD is the most interesting one imo because there's good room to discuss "How do we prevent this from happening again?", which is not a conversation the IW/ruling the player in bounds really has outside of "Don't." Chandler running onto the field is forever behind the play. You can see in that first picture that Steratore had just waved the U out of the way and is giving the Ready for Play. How do you catch someone trying to sub on that far behind the play? Gotta figure the wing on that side should be watching that sideline until Steratore says "Ready" over the mic or something, but he's in the process of giving that so even with that happening the H/L's attention will be back toward the line in this case. Maybe the U could also hold over the ball for another second to scan the offensive sideline for any potential substitute? I mean heck he is heading to his position which is in the general direction of where Chandler is, if he looks up he would probably see him on the field and realize "Hm, I should hold up play real quick." 999 times out of 1000 when a team is already lined up like New England is there aren't any substitutes to worry about, but the time they come it needs to be caught. Back judge or the side/field judge (depending on sideline) might should be involved on this one, too. That close to the end zone it will probably be pretty easy to find their key once the action starts so watching the sideline might help.  No easy answer to mechanics on this one (that I can think of, anyway) but it needs to be figured out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:So where are all those guys from last night's GDT who explained how we were all idiots and Watkins was clearly down inbounds now that Steratore's explanation was more or less psychotic and everyone with officiating experience in the known universe has said the opposite Turns out a lot of folks who watch football don't know all of the rules because that rulebook is a monster to read, they just pick things up from announcers and extrapolate from there. Can't blame anyone for that but in pretty technical situations it can lead to the wrong conclusions. e: Soothing Vapors posted:huh, I thought Mean Gene had been around for a lot longer than 2 years Steratore has been around a while, but the HL who made the call that he was in bounds has only been around 2 years. (Fun fact, Steratore also does NCAA D1 Basketball) chaoslord fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
kalensc posted:Can't afford to pay refs full-time and train the gently caress out of them year-round, no sirree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:Which is probably what the official was thinking as well. PAC-12 ref. Makes complete sense now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
chaoslord posted:Turns out a lot of folks who watch football don't know all of the rules because that rulebook is a monster to read, they just pick things up from announcers and extrapolate from there I do think they should change the rules that 12 men penalties shouldn't include players clearly running off the field away from the action. The only time it's used is by offenses trying to get cheap penalties, so I think they should loosen up on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I do think they should change the rules that 12 men penalties shouldn't include players clearly running off the field away from the action. No. Then you introduce judgement into what is currently a very black and white call.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:No. Then you introduce judgement into what is currently a very black and white call. All you have to do is make sure the person running off has established themselves as a non-runner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:PAC-12 ref. Makes complete sense now. Yyyyep
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Intruder posted:It feels like a meltdown because of the "eat poo poo" stuff you posted It helps me  Joey Freshwater posted:Hahah good lord dude. You're gonna win another game, but if you really want to stick to it, donate the money to charity instead. I already have enough Bucs jerseys that I don't wear. Aw, you don't want what will undoubtedly be a Revis Buccs Jersey? This has me curious, gonna go check. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Nice meltdown 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Hey, I'm glad to see the Pac-12's officiating situation gets to be seen by the whole nation, at least!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
AbsolutelySane posted:. Just started getting back into real football Fandom last year and reading TFF this year. I've been out of the game for a couple years so I missed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:It helps me Haha looks like it's Freeman at $20. I already have one of those! e: wtf is this:http://www.nflshop.com/Tampa_Bay_Bu..._Limited_Jersey
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Wait, you're telling me that in 2015 the official NFL team store is still selling Josh Freeman jerseys
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
The White TD wasn't a mistake by the refs. Chandler never crosses the numbers so he doesn't count as a legal substitution, Bills therefore have no right to substitute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Even if that's true, which the reading of the rules I saw says it isn't, if a defender is that far in the backfield the play should be blown dead and a penalty assessed
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
TheBuckmister posted:The White TD wasn't a mistake by the refs. Chandler never crosses the numbers so he doesn't count as a legal substitution, Bills therefore have no right to substitute. What Chandler did would constitute a simulated substitution which per the rules means the defense should be allowed time to adjust. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Wait, you're telling me that in 2015 the official NFL team store is still selling Josh Freeman jerseys Technically it's their "sale" section but yeah. They're also selling Marc Barron jerseys
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Joey Freshwater posted:Technically it's their "sale" section but yeah. They're also selling Marc Barron jerseys Still a few Darren McFadden Raiders jerseys too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:02
|
|
NC-17 posted:What Chandler did would constitute a simulated substitution which per the rules means the defense should be allowed time to adjust. Depends on what constitutes a "simulated substitution" e.g. is it enough that Chandler was on the field and left before reaching the area that would be enough for a real substitution or is it meant to cover Chandler going inside the numbers (the area where the substitution counts) and leaving it again, thereby simulating a substitution.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Joey Freshwater posted:I've got a friend with season tickets if you're interested in those. I can see how much they want for them. They're not terrible seats. Lower level corner end zones yeah that'd be cool. email me at username at gmail dot com
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Depends on what constitutes a "simulated substitution" e.g. is it enough that Chandler was on the field and left before reaching the area that would be enough for a real substitution or is it meant to cover Chandler going inside the numbers (the area where the substitution counts) and leaving it again, thereby simulating a substitution. I don't know if there is an official counter argument on that. But literally standing on the field running towards the play is as close to simulated as you can get. Outside of the whole "should have been blown dead anyway" point, I don't think there's a ton of grey on the substitution thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
The rules are pretty precise so it matters a lot. NC-17 makes a good point but we need the NFL definition of simulated sub to see if it is correct. I'll see if I can find it tonight. Not sure what rule Intruder thinks the play should have been blown dead on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
TheBuckmister posted:The rules are pretty precise so it matters a lot. NC-17 makes a good point but we need the NFL definition of simulated sub to see if it is correct. I'll see if I can find it tonight. Not sure what rule Intruder thinks the play should have been blown dead on. Unabated to the quarterback? Technically true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
TheBuckmister posted:The rules are pretty precise so it matters a lot. NC-17 makes a good point but we need the NFL definition of simulated sub to see if it is correct. I'll see if I can find it tonight. Not sure what rule Intruder thinks the play should have been blown dead on. Simulated substitution isn't defined, really. Past what NC-17 said, you have two instances where the word simulated shows up in the rules at all. NFL Rule 5-2-5 Note posted:Note: The intent of the rule [required substitutes to enter inside the field numerals] is to prevent teams from using simulated substitutions to confuse an opponent, while still permitting a player (or players) to enter and leave without participating in a play in certain situations, such as a change in a coaching decision on fourth down, even though he has approached the huddle and communicated with a teammate. Similarly, if a player who participated in the previous play leaves the playing field by mistake, and returns to the playing field prior to the snap, he is not required to reach the inside of the field numerals, provided that the defense has the opportunity to match up with him. However, a substitute (i.e., someone who did not participate in the previous play) is required to reach the inside of the field numerals. NFL Rule 5-2-11, Unsportsmanlike Conduct posted:Using entering substitutes, legally returning players, substitutes on sidelines, or withdrawn players to confuse opponents, or lingering by players leaving the field when being replaced by a substitute, is unsportsmanlike conduct. See 12-3-1-l. The offense is prevented from sending simulated substitutions onto the field toward its huddle and returning them to the sideline without completing the substitution in an attempt to confuse the defense. If it looks like it's supposed to be a substitution, it's simulating one. You can make the argument that he never got in the numbers so he doesn't fulfill 5-2-5-a and never became a player but him running onto the field IMO is a pretty clear simulation of a substitution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
I'm sure they'll make a rule about it just like every time the Patriots do something that bends the rules
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
If they have to make a new rule to stop what you did then you didn't do anything wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:If they have to make a new rule to stop what you did then you didn't do anything wrong. If you were really quiet when you submitted that post, you could hear the entire city of Oakland screaming "TUCK RULE"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
the Tuck Rule owned and I'm glad it happened
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Jesus gently caress, Minnesotans are such fickle fans. I was pissed watching the game against the Packers, and admittedly turned it off at the AP fumble, but the response (not here in TFF) has been extreme. Terrance Newman was right that people are acting like it was ten losses, not one. Losing to the Packers sucks, but the Vikings are still likely a playoff team. Considering that most pre-season predictions couldn't bother to acknowledge an NFC North team not located in Wisconsin (except to discuss that an easy divisional schedule would probably give the Packers home field advantage throughout the playoffs), 7-3 and firmly in the wildcard spot is pretty drat good. A local news teaser for an upcoming segment on the 5-6 Gophers said that hopefully the Gophers can do better than "another team that plays at TCF". Everyone around here is so excited to be the first one to yell "SAME OLD VIKINGS" after the second time in ten games that they have looked really out of sync. I hate losing to the Packers, but it's always so black and white with these loving fans. It wouldn't be so annoying if it wasn't so predictable. The local bandwagon will fill up again if the team makes the playoffs. Then, when they don't win the superb owl, people will bitch about the most inane poo poo and act like we're going into next season with Ponder at QB, a defense full of retirees and underperformers, and a coach that emotes only slightly more than Jim Caldwell. poo poo's getting better, but it takes time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:If you were really quiet when you submitted that post, you could hear the entire city of Oakland screaming "TUCK RULE" Meh. It wasn't even the only time that it was called that year. Raiders fans should be well beyond getting over it imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:the Tuck Rule owned and I'm glad it happened It was a lose-lose because it gave rise to a bunch of evil cheaters even though it defeated an evil empire. Another sad moment for the league.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:the Tuck Rule owned and I'm glad it happened I'm glad your team is moving to a real city soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
effectual posted:I'm glad your team is moving to a real city soon. I'm glad your basketball team left
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
I think the Chargers are cool and good. Well, not THIS roster, or coaching staff or management or stadium. But the idea of a California lightning bolt fun time team is good and should be left alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:I think the Chargers are cool and good. The CONCEPT of the Chargers is cool. Shame they can't seem to put it into practice. I also won't totally hate it if the Raiders end up sharing a stadium with them. Because at least they're not the Rams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 13:37
|
|