Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't make that call in that situation. That was just brutal.

That ignores the fact that it was the 2d time that the Pats had hit Manning in the head in 4 (5? whatever) plays. If the play that drew the flag had been the first time, there wouldn't have been a flag. As TM said, gotta get the defense to keep their hands off the qb's head.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
I recall reading an article [can't find it NY Times?] that stated that on average football players make approx on average 1.5 mil a year [which is much lower than basketball and baseball] and that there are no guarantees if injured in their contracts and there are injury clauses in both basketball and baseball? is this true and why is that?

PM TM for the answer.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Serious question -- would an 8-foot ceiling seem low? I don't know how high ceilings generally are.

That's standard height these days. Over 8 feet is somewhat more luxurious, and you're likely to find it on the first floor of newer construction that isn't super cheap.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Situations should never determine when a call is made.

Regardless of the situation, that call should not have been made.

From the lone replay CBS gave it looked like he had his arms up and as he ran through manning got a piece of his helmet. Anyway, all it did was mean they scored sooner.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Situations should never determine when a call is made.

Of course they do, at least in football, basketball, soccer and hockey. I can't think of an example in baseball, so maybe you have that one. In all of these sports, the referees should not be deciding the game, and so you don't make a borderline call that could be dispositive. Obviously, there are some calls that have to be made -- a receiver is in bounds or out of bounds, a pitch is a ball or a strike, etc. But that's not what I'm talking about.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I can't think of an example in baseball, so maybe you have that one.

The strike zone expands when the game is a rout or a no hitter.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Regardless of the situation, that call should not have been made.

That may be true, but that wasn't my point. A penalty with 14 minutes remaining is also a penalty with 10 seconds remaining. The rules must be applied consistently throughout the game.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Of course. It's just like if someone gets fouled in the last few seconds of a playoff basketball game. Refs are supposed to swallow their whistles, right?

Look, I agree. It's football. If the guy isn't trying to knock his head off, who cares? Hold on to the flag. But it's hard to blame the ref for making an automatic call. It's not like the defender didn't know he couldn't hit the quarterback in the face. Shouldn't you be saying?: "You don't hit the quarterback in the face in that situation. That was just stupid."

If Banta-Cain hit him in the face, sure. I couldn't see it well enough to tell (thanks, CBS).

And it certainly was stupid to send 12 men into the huddle a few minutes earlier. I've never seen that called before, but they certainly deserved it.

Originally posted by Burger
Anyway, all it did was mean they scored sooner.

Not so. With the time on the clock, they would have been able to call running plays from the 24. They may well have scored anyway, but they would have had to pass to do it.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course they do, at least in football, basketball, soccer and hockey. I can't think of an example in baseball, so maybe you have that one. In all of these sports, the referees should not be deciding the game, and so you don't make a borderline call that could be dispositive. Obviously, there are some calls that have to be made -- a receiver is in bounds or out of bounds, a pitch is a ball or a strike, etc. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I am aware that it happens. I am saying that it shouldn't.

If the ref decides NOT to make a call based on the situation (that he otherwise would have made if the game was not near conclusion), he is making a choice that is also potentially dispositive, is he not?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
That ignores the fact that it was the 2d time that the Pats had hit Manning in the head in 4 (5? whatever) plays. If the play that drew the flag had been the first time, there wouldn't have been a flag. As TM said, gotta get the defense to keep their hands off the qb's head.

I didn't see the first one, either, but Manning shouldn't be wasting his time bitching to the refs under those circumstances and the refs shouldn't be throwing the flag at that point in the game unless it's really flagrant and/or it affects play.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I am aware that it happens. I am saying that it shouldn't.

If the ref decides NOT to make a call based on the situation, he is making a choice that is also potentially dispositive, is he not?

I agree with that. That said, personal fouls almost never affect the actual play itself (I suppose the 15-yard facemask can, although if you can grab the facemask that long, you probably could make the tackle anyway).

BTW, I think that was the explanation the Giants' lineman gave for when he let Vince Young get away on that fourth down play back a few weeks ago. He said that he didn't know if the ball had been released, and under the rules if he hit him and the ball was away, he would have been penalized 15 yards. The league basically should put flags on the QB, and he's down if you pull one off. Any physical contact beyond that should be an automatic penalty.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course they do, at least in football, basketball, soccer and hockey. I can't think of an example in baseball, so maybe you have that one. In all of these sports, the referees should not be deciding the game, and so you don't make a borderline call that could be dispositive. Obviously, there are some calls that have to be made -- a receiver is in bounds or out of bounds, a pitch is a ball or a strike, etc. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Wouldn't your way of doing things make it more likely that players get away with cheap shots at the end of the game? When should the refs start non-calling?

(I feel like such a little economist with these questions.)

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't see the first one, either, but Manning shouldn't be wasting his time bitching to the refs under those circumstances and the refs shouldn't be throwing the flag at that point in the game unless it's really flagrant and/or it affects play.

If indeed he had been bitching to the refs, I think he pretty clearly demonstrated that it wasn't a waste of time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
If the ref decides NOT to make a call based on the situation (that he otherwise would have made if the game was not near conclusion), he is making a choice that is also potentially dispositive, is he not?

The game should be decided by what the players do in the course of play, not by the referees. As TM said, an NBA game should be decided by a tough shot in a lane, not by free throws made after a borderline call. The principle is the same.

[dtb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Unless you have tried to set your own house on fire, I don't know on what basis you intend to argue with the lady.

I had an arson Barbri practice question that said concrete was much less flammable.

If that isn't proof, I don't know what is.