|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jan 11, 2015 11:27:24 GMT -5
It's what you have to do if you go down by two TD's. Twice. Al Michaels kept saying how nervous the whole stadium and fans were when it was 14-0 and how relieved they were when they 'tied it up'. "You just don't come back from a two TD deficit against the Ravens". Not without cheating, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on Jan 11, 2015 11:32:54 GMT -5
how about the jets being able to run a quick offense or have a qb capable of taking a quick snap etc. it's all part of the game. if the rules suck, the rules suck not the teams or players who exploit them.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 11:41:37 GMT -5
lol, What else is deception? Was the fake spike, flea flicker, wildcat, half back pass, fake punt, onside kick etc all "dubious"? How about the Jets introduction of the defense not lining up before the snap? Was that meant to deceive? Come on, if you want to have a real conversation about rules without attacking them because of the teams, let's have one. If you want to just sling mud and talk about "cheating", I'm too old to take the bait. The NFL just ruled that it was legal. BTW, the NFL also said that the defense was made aware with 6-8 seconds to prepare and the ineligible guy was announced over the loudspeaker as well. I'm sure most don't even know exactly what happened and think it was a matter of the Pats* saying who was eligible at the last second so here it is in its simplistic brilliance. The Pats* put 6 potential eligible receivers on the field at the same time and before the play, declared one of them ineligible to keep with the rules. The refs announced it, the ineligible guy was announced and the rules were satisfied. Then, the Pats* flipped who was eligible on the next play, and then again on the next play. This created match up problems for the Ravens because their defense had specific match ups based on who the Fucking Cocksuckers lined up. Because the Fucking Cocksuckers kept flipping the eligible receiver by declaring it to the refs who then turned around and reported it to the Ravens. The Ravens had bad match ups and sometimes the wrong personnel on the field. Further confusing the Ravens, was the fact that the ineligible receiver was sometimes lined up split and the eligible receiver was lined up at the end of a traditional off balanced line. The Ravens complaint isn't that they didn't know who was ineligible. They were told by the refs. Their complaint was that they weren't allowed to substitute players based on the eligible receiver. The current rule states that if the offense substitutes, the defense is allowed time to substitute. The rule does not say the defense can substitute because a different player is declared ineligible without the offense substituting players. Now compare that to the endzone hide and you see the stark difference in the thought process. I actually appreciate the effort to explain what happened a bit better. But for me, wether something is a legit innovation or a weenisy exploitation depends on if it's something I really care to see every team use and be part of how the game is played - both on a football level and on a sportsmanship level. And I think these kinds of things - enumerated above - are shitty frankly. Brady is a great enough QB to not have to or want to play this way. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 11, 2015 11:42:04 GMT -5
..... in eligible recievr? Whoever heard of that!!!! What's next? The "forward pass?" craaayyyzzeeeeeee.
|
|
|
Post by carlton on Jan 11, 2015 11:45:32 GMT -5
The Pats are like the guy at the gym playing pickup basketball with random teams yelling "i'm open! i'm open!" trying to trick the other team to throw him the ball. No one has matching shirts so it works all the time and then he cackles to himself while everyone wishes he would die.
|
|
|
Post by BushytheLobster on Jan 11, 2015 11:48:58 GMT -5
lol, What else is deception? Was the fake spike, flea flicker, wildcat, half back pass, fake punt, onside kick etc all "dubious"? How about the Jets introduction of the defense not lining up before the snap? Was that meant to deceive? Come on, if you want to have a real conversation about rules without attacking them because of the teams, let's have one. If you want to just sling mud and talk about "cheating", I'm too old to take the bait. The NFL just ruled that it was legal. BTW, the NFL also said that the defense was made aware with 6-8 seconds to prepare and the ineligible guy was announced over the loudspeaker as well. I'm sure most don't even know exactly what happened and think it was a matter of the Pats* saying who was eligible at the last second so here it is in its simplistic brilliance. The Pats* put 6 potential eligible receivers on the field at the same time and before the play, declared one of them ineligible to keep with the rules. The refs announced it, the ineligible guy was announced and the rules were satisfied. Then, the Pats* flipped who was eligible on the next play, and then again on the next play. This created match up problems for the Ravens because their defense had specific match ups based on who the Fucking Cocksuckers lined up. Because the Fucking Cocksuckers kept flipping the eligible receiver by declaring it to the refs who then turned around and reported it to the Ravens. The Ravens had bad match ups and sometimes the wrong personnel on the field. Further confusing the Ravens, was the fact that the ineligible receiver was sometimes lined up split and the eligible receiver was lined up at the end of a traditional off balanced line. The Ravens complaint isn't that they didn't know who was ineligible. They were told by the refs. Their complaint was that they weren't allowed to substitute players based on the eligible receiver. The current rule states that if the offense substitutes, the defense is allowed time to substitute. The rule does not say the defense can substitute because a different player is declared ineligible without the offense substituting players. Now compare that to the endzone hide and you see the stark difference in the thought process. //end thread
|
|
|
Post by morite on Jan 11, 2015 11:55:59 GMT -5
The Pats* are like the guy at the gym playing pickup basketball with random teams yelling "i'm open! i'm open!" trying to trick the other team to throw him the ball. No one has matching shirts so it works all the time and then he cackles to himself while everyone wishes he would die. It doesn't feel right, but I do wonder how we'd be feeling if we were playing the Pats, and the Jets pulled the same shenanigans... Would we be disgusted, or applauding our keen exploitation of the rule?
|
|
|
Post by carlton on Jan 11, 2015 11:57:04 GMT -5
The Pats** are like the guy at the gym playing pickup basketball with random teams yelling "i'm open! i'm open!" trying to trick the other team to throw him the ball. No one has matching shirts so it works all the time and then he cackles to himself while everyone wishes he would die. It doesn't feel right, but I do wonder how we'd be feeling if we were playing the Pats*, and the Jets pulled the same shenanigans... Would we be disgusted, or applauding our keen exploitation of the rule? It's a douchey purposeful exploitation of the rules and if it brings us a win I say I love it! We can't have any pride after 45 years of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by morite on Jan 11, 2015 12:02:21 GMT -5
It doesn't feel right, but I do wonder how we'd be feeling if we were playing the Pats**, and the Jets pulled the same shenanigans... Would we be disgusted, or applauding our keen exploitation of the rule? It's a douchey purposeful exploitation of the rules and if it brings us a win I say I love it! We can't have any pride after 45 years of suffering. Bingo. Still, fuck those assholes up in NE!
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 11, 2015 12:28:01 GMT -5
The Pats* are like the guy at the gym playing pickup basketball with random teams yelling "i'm open! i'm open!" trying to trick the other team to throw him the ball. No one has matching shirts so it works all the time and then he cackles to himself while everyone wishes he would die. WTF....shirts and skins dude. I always yell SHIRTS right away so my man boobs won't be flapping around.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 12:28:56 GMT -5
The Pats** are like the guy at the gym playing pickup basketball with random teams yelling "i'm open! i'm open!" trying to trick the other team to throw him the ball. No one has matching shirts so it works all the time and then he cackles to himself while everyone wishes he would die. It doesn't feel right, but I do wonder how we'd be feeling if we were playing the Pats*, and the Jets pulled the same shenanigans... Would we be disgusted, or applauding our keen exploitation of the rule? For me, I'd feel happier that the other team lost than we won - if that makes sense. I wouldn't like to win that way.
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jan 11, 2015 12:32:02 GMT -5
I didn't see the play before this happened. Do I understand correctly that Hoomanawanui was on the field as an ineligible receiver on the prior play?
If Hoomanawanui was on the field on the prior play as an ineligible receiver and did not announce the change in eligibility (i.e. only Vereen announced ineligibility) then it is an illegal substitution. Each player who changes eligibility has to announce the change. However, if Hoomanawanui was on the field in the prior play as an ineligible receiver then he cannot become an eligible receiver on the subsequent play unless one or more conditions were met. I don't see that any condition was met permitting the change. Therefore, it is also an illegal substitution for that reason. See Rule 5(3)(1) and (2).
However, regardless of Hoomanawanui's status on the prior play, when Vareen announced his ineligibility the referee, the officials had a duty not to allow the offense to snap the ball until the defense was given a chance to make and complete substitutions. See Rules 5(2)(10) ("If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions.") So even if the change in eligibility was not an illegal formation the officials failed, seemingly each time the Pats did this, to give the defense an appropriate amount of time to make substitutions. The NFL assertion that 6-8 seconds was sufficient is absurd. There's no way the decision to make substitutions and communicate them to the players on the field could even be made in 6-8 seconds. If the NFL really believes that is an appropriate length of time then that all but defeats the multiple rules that clearly states teams are not allowed to use substitutions to create confusion before a snap. It's an unsportsmanlike penalty. Well, at least it is according to the rules.
I thoroughly expect that the officials will be instructed next year that they must give defenses more time.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jan 11, 2015 12:37:56 GMT -5
I didn't see the play before this happened. Do I understand correctly that Hoomanawanui was on the field as an ineligible receiver on the prior play? If Hoomanawanui was on the field on the prior play as an ineligible receiver and did not announce the change in eligibility (i.e. only Vereen announced ineligibility) then it is an illegal substitution. Each player who changes eligibility has to announce the change. However, if Hoomanawanui was on the field in the prior play as an ineligible receiver then he cannot become an eligible receiver on the subsequent play unless one or more conditions were met. I don't see that any condition was met permitting the change. Therefore, it is also an illegal substitution for that reason. See Rule 5(3)(1) and (2). However, regardless of Hoomanawanui's status on the prior play, when Vareen announced his ineligibility the referee, the officials had a duty not to allow the offense to snap the ball until the defense was given a chance to make and complete substitutions. See Rules 5(2)(10) ("If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions.") So even if the change in eligibility was not an illegal formation the officials failed, seemingly each time the Pats* did this, to give the defense an appropriate amount of time to make substitutions. The NFL assertion that 6-8 seconds was sufficient is absurd. There's no way the decision to make substitutions and communicate them to the players on the field could even be made in 6-8 seconds. If the NFL really believes that is an appropriate length of time then that all but defeats the multiple rules that clearly states teams are not allowed to use substitutions to create confusion before a snap. It's an unsportsmanlike penalty. Well, at least it is according to the rules. I thoroughly expect that the officials will be instructed next year that they must give defenses more time. And the Patriots will be on to their next cheating tactic. And no - the rules aren't different for the Pats. Of course they aren't
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 12:43:02 GMT -5
I didn't see the play before this happened. Do I understand correctly that Hoomanawanui was on the field as an ineligible receiver on the prior play? If Hoomanawanui was on the field on the prior play as an ineligible receiver and did not announce the change in eligibility (i.e. only Vereen announced ineligibility) then it is an illegal substitution. Each player who changes eligibility has to announce the change. However, if Hoomanawanui was on the field in the prior play as an ineligible receiver then he cannot become an eligible receiver on the subsequent play unless one or more conditions were met. I don't see that any condition was met permitting the change. Therefore, it is also an illegal substitution for that reason. See Rule 5(3)(1) and (2). However, regardless of Hoomanawanui's status on the prior play, when Vareen announced his ineligibility the referee, the officials had a duty not to allow the offense to snap the ball until the defense was given a chance to make and complete substitutions. See Rules 5(2)(10) ("If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions.") So even if the change in eligibility was not an illegal formation the officials failed, seemingly each time the Pats* did this, to give the defense an appropriate amount of time to make substitutions. The NFL assertion that 6-8 seconds was sufficient is absurd. There's no way the decision to make substitutions and communicate them to the players on the field could even be made in 6-8 seconds. If the NFL really believes that is an appropriate length of time then that all but defeats the multiple rules that clearly states teams are not allowed to use substitutions to create confusion before a snap. It's an unsportsmanlike penalty. Well, at least it is according to the rules. I thoroughly expect that the officials will be instructed next year that they must give defenses more time. Rep given. That's a very cogent view into this. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 11, 2015 12:44:00 GMT -5
I didn't see the play before this happened. Do I understand correctly that Hoomanawanui was on the field as an ineligible receiver on the prior play? If Hoomanawanui was on the field on the prior play as an ineligible receiver and did not announce the change in eligibility (i.e. only Vereen announced ineligibility) then it is an illegal substitution. Each player who changes eligibility has to announce the change. However, if Hoomanawanui was on the field in the prior play as an ineligible receiver then he cannot become an eligible receiver on the subsequent play unless one or more conditions were met. I don't see that any condition was met permitting the change. Therefore, it is also an illegal substitution for that reason. See Rule 5(3)(1) and (2). However, regardless of Hoomanawanui's status on the prior play, when Vareen announced his ineligibility the referee, the officials had a duty not to allow the offense to snap the ball until the defense was given a chance to make and complete substitutions. See Rules 5(2)(10) ("If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions.") So even if the change in eligibility was not an illegal formation the officials failed, seemingly each time the Pats* did this, to give the defense an appropriate amount of time to make substitutions. The NFL assertion that 6-8 seconds was sufficient is absurd. There's no way the decision to make substitutions and communicate them to the players on the field could even be made in 6-8 seconds. If the NFL really believes that is an appropriate length of time then that all but defeats the multiple rules that clearly states teams are not allowed to use substitutions to create confusion before a snap. It's an unsportsmanlike penalty. Well, at least it is according to the rules. I thoroughly expect that the officials will be instructed next year that they must give defenses more time. seems like your problem is with the NFL rules, not the Pats.
|
|