Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At the risk of beating this farther into the ground:

If it's plain as your nose that it's a foul, then they should call it a foul. But the borderline calls shouldn't be made, and calls not affecting play shouldn't be made unless they're really egregious. I'm not saying Zidane stays on the field. I'm saying that NBA games should be decided by field goals, not free throws.

I wish. this week v. Utah, Pistons are tied with a few seconds left. Rip drives and hits a shot just before the buzzer. Game time! ummm no they called a touch foul BEFORE the shot, and Utah had 1 to give. We lost in overtime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I wish. this week v. Utah, Pistons are tied with a few seconds left. Rip drives and hits a shot just before the buzzer. Game time! ummm no they called a touch foul BEFORE the shot, and Utah had 1 to give. We lost in overtime.

Let's just keep our little agreements over here instead of letting them infect everything on the PB.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At the risk of beating this farther into the ground:

If it's plain as your nose that it's a foul, then they should call it a foul. But the borderline calls shouldn't be made, and calls not affecting play shouldn't be made unless they're really egregious. I'm not saying Zidane stays on the field. I'm saying that NBA games should be decided by field goals, not free throws.

I understand what you are saying. I don't think you get what I am saying.

1. A foul is a foul. Whether you think it should be called or not, it is a foul. We can argue that a foul is not a foul until it is called (unless it is an automatic call, like hands or arms to the head of the quarterback), but that's pointless. There are no borderline fouls. It is either a foul or it isn't.

2. If the referee is put in a position where a player is fouled, they must make a decision. They either blow the whistle and assess a penalty or they don't. The fact that you think they should avoid calling certain fouls at the end of a game is irrelevant. And you have less of a leg to stand on if you're going to argue that some fouls can be called early in the game and not late in the game because you are admitting that they are fouls by making that argument at all.

3. The decision is no more dispositive if the refs choose not to blow the whistle and the team that was fouled loses because they were not assessed a penalty than if they blow the whistle and they win because of said penalty. In either situation, the referee is making a dispositive decision.

PLF was being silly earlier, but he is right. If you want the refs to avoid calling "no blood no foul" calls at the end of games, then you need to institute an End of the Game No Blood, No Foul Rule.

I am sure that you have an opinion on the Tuck Rule as it pertains to Tom Brady's obvious fumble during their first playoff run. Although his arm was going forward, he was in the process of tucking the ball and not throwing it when he was hit and fumbled. If the rule says that the refs must call it an incomplete pass even though everyone in the stadium and everyone watching can see that he clearly fumbled the ball and had no intention of passing it, then it is an incomplete pass and a dead ball.

In that instance, a stupid rule went the Patriots' way. Now, you are whining because your defensive linemen aren't disciplined enough to not smack the opposing quarterback in the face during the last 90 seconds of a game (knowing it is an automatic 15 yard penalty) and you're blaming the rule by saying that the automatic rule shouldn't be enforced because it's a really important part of the game? That is ridiculous because calling the penalty is just as important for the other team as not calling it is for yours.

In short (ha) swallowing the whistle is just as big a decision as blowing the whistle no matter when a foul or penalty has occurred. Just because you don't like the application of the rule doesn't change that fact.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I understand what you are saying. I don't think you get what I am saying.

1. A foul is a foul. Whether you think it should be called or not, it is a foul. We can argue that a foul is not a foul until it is called (unless it is an automatic call, like hands or arms to the head of the quarterback), but that's pointless. There are no borderline fouls. It is either a foul or it isn't.

2. If the referee is put in a position where a player is fouled, they must make a decision. They either blow the whistle and assess a penalty or they don't. The fact that you think they should avoid calling certain fouls at the end of a game is irrelevant. And you have less of a leg to stand on if you're going to argue that some fouls can be called early in the game and not late in the game because you are admitting that they are fouls by making that argument at all.

3. The decision is no more dispositive if the refs choose not to blow the whistle and the team that was fouled loses because they were not assessed a penalty than if they blow the whistle and they win because of said penalty. In either situation, the referee is making a dispositive decision.

PLF was being silly earlier, but he is right. If you want the refs to avoid calling "no blood no foul" calls at the end of games, then you need to institute an End of the Game No Blood, No Foul Rule.

I am sure that you have an opinion on the Tuck Rule as it pertains to Tom Brady's obvious fumble during their first playoff run. Although his arm was going forward, he was in the process of tucking the ball and not throwing it when he was hit and fumbled. If the rule says that the refs must call it an incomplete pass even though everyone in the stadium and everyone watching can see that he clearly fumbled the ball and had no intention of passing it, then it is an incomplete pass and a dead ball.

In that instance, a stupid rule went the Patriots' way. Now, you are whining because your defensive linemen aren't disciplined enough to not smack the opposing quarterback in the face during the last 90 seconds of a game (knowing it is an automatic 15 yard penalty) and you're blaming the rule by saying that the automatic rule shouldn't be enforced because it's a really important part of the game? That is ridiculous because calling the penalty is just as important for the other team as not calling it is for yours.

In short (ha) swallowing the whistle is just as big a decision as blowing the whistle no matter when a foul or penalty has occurred. Just because you don't like the application of the rule doesn't change that fact.

I get what you are saying but I disagree.

If there's a borderline call on a pass play in the end zone at the end of a close game, the ref should avoid blowing his whistle, and let the players decide the play. This awards physical play in the playoffs, and I'm OK with that, particularly if everyone is on the same page ex ante. For example, I think the refs made the right (non-)call on the pass play to Reche Caldwell in the back right corner of the end zone in (I think) the fourth quarter, on a possession where the Pats settled for a FG. There was contact. It could have been called interference, if the refs were calling a tight game. Better not to blow the whistle there.

If Banta-Cain really whacked Manning, then maybe it's a personal foul. I didn't see it that way. It seemed pretty marginal to me, and not a call that should be made at the end of a tight play-off game.

With the Tuck Rule play, the refs can't avoid injecting themselves into the play. It's either an incompletion or a fumble. I think you get this distinction.

eta: And just so we're clear: IMHO, the refs blew that call, but the Colts won the game and the Pats lost it. The Pats could have converted on the 3rd-and-4 with 2:30 left; the game would have been over. The Pats didn't make their plays, and the Colts made theirs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I understand what you are saying. I don't think you get what I am saying.

1. A foul is a foul. Whether you think it should be called or not, it is a foul. We can argue that a foul is not a foul until it is called (unless it is an automatic call, like hands or arms to the head of the quarterback), but that's pointless. There are no borderline fouls. It is either a foul or it isn't.

2. If the referee is put in a position where a player is fouled, they must make a decision. They either blow the whistle and assess a penalty or they don't. The fact that you think they should avoid calling certain fouls at the end of a game is irrelevant. And you have less of a leg to stand on if you're going to argue that some fouls can be called early in the game and not late in the game because you are admitting that they are fouls by making that argument at all.

3. The decision is no more dispositive if the refs choose not to blow the whistle and the team that was fouled loses because they were not assessed a penalty than if they blow the whistle and they win because of said penalty. In either situation, the referee is making a dispositive decision.

PLF was being silly earlier, but he is right. If you want the refs to avoid calling "no blood no foul" calls at the end of games, then you need to institute an End of the Game No Blood, No Foul Rule.

I am sure that you have an opinion on the Tuck Rule as it pertains to Tom Brady's obvious fumble during their first playoff run. Although his arm was going forward, he was in the process of tucking the ball and not throwing it when he was hit and fumbled. If the rule says that the refs must call it an incomplete pass even though everyone in the stadium and everyone watching can see that he clearly fumbled the ball and had no intention of passing it, then it is an incomplete pass and a dead ball.

In that instance, a stupid rule went the Patriots' way. Now, you are whining because your defensive linemen aren't disciplined enough to not smack the opposing quarterback in the face during the last 90 seconds of a game (knowing it is an automatic 15 yard penalty) and you're blaming the rule by saying that the automatic rule shouldn't be enforced because it's a really important part of the game? That is ridiculous because calling the penalty is just as important for the other team as not calling it is for yours.

In short (ha) swallowing the whistle is just as big a decision as blowing the whistle no matter when a foul or penalty has occurred. Just because you don't like the application of the rule doesn't change that fact.

TM

2 type fouls-

a basketball shooting foul- which does change the play, it makes the shot less likely to go in;

which is different from a foul intended to discourage behavior that doesn't really change the game (inadvertent facemask or the hit on Manning yesterday)

Ty could make an argument of the malum pro se malum prohibitum (I know these are spelled wrong but big deal) variety- maybe a late hit call shouldn't decide a game unless it is blatant.

Personally I blame the D-line guy, but I do think Ty coould use some help in how to craft an effective argument re. this issue.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Banta-Cain really whacked Manning, then maybe it's a personal foul. I didn't see it that way. It seemed pretty marginal to me, and not a call that should be made at the end of a tight play-off game.

for those following along at home- note Ty's movement today; initially not having an opinion because he didn't have a decent view of the play- AND asking if anyone had a link to show the play. Now that it is clear no better view will come along- Ty decides the play was clean.

Remember this sort thing next time you read anything he posts on the PB.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Banta-Cain really whacked Manning, then maybe it's a personal foul. I didn't see it that way. It seemed pretty marginal to me, and not a call that should be made at the end of a tight play-off game.

That was a shitty play to throw the flag on, but that was at least the third time on that series when the Pats were close to drawing a roughing flag and the second time that they made contact with Manning's helmet. Re-watch those plays. Sometimes it's an accumulation of almosts that gets a flag. Thurgreed wouldn't approve, but that's what happened.

One reason that they didn't show more replays of the hit was the fumple by Reggie Wayne, which was replayed several times. And, as Simms pointed out, had the Pats recovered the ball, the roughing penalty would have let the Colts keep it. THAT would have really pissed off the Pats fans.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
for those following along at home- note Ty's movement today; initially not having an opinion because he didn't have a decent view of the play- AND asking if anyone had a link to show the play. Now that it is clear no better view will come along- Ty decides the play was clean.

Remember this sort thing next time you read anything he posts on the PB.

I checked Quiggin's blog-no comment.

[ltl/fb]

I accidentally bought a regular soft drink instead of diet. Now I have sugary crap in my mouth. I think I need to get aromatherapy in my office, or something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Re-watch those plays. Sometimes it's an accumulation of almosts that gets a flag.

If I could, I would, but I can't. I agree that if they were repeatedly engaging in borderline conduct, that more warrants the flag. As I said, I didn't see it.

One reason that they didn't show more replays of the hit was the fumple by Reggie Wayne, which was replayed several times. And, as Simms pointed out, had the Pats recovered the ball, the roughing penalty would have let the Colts keep it. THAT would have really pissed off the Pats fans.

Rightly so.

I didn't much care for CBS's coverage, but I felt that way throughout the whole game.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I accidentally bought a regular soft drink instead of diet. Now I have sugary crap in my mouth. I think I need to get aromatherapy in my office, or something.

I'm fluish.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I accidentally bought a regular soft drink instead of diet. Now I have sugary crap in my mouth. I think I need to get aromatherapy in my office, or something.

You have to purchase beverages?

Should I try the Pit Bull?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'm fluish.

So send me some money.

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally posted by ironweed
Hi! But outing me as a violent, hotheaded African soccer player is not so cool.

Just for context to the article, Clarkston is a relatively close-in Atlanta suburb. This isn't the sticks of South Georgia and one should expect the locals to be a little more accepting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So send me some money.

wanna make $100 the hard way?