NFL 2017-18 Thread

sunvalleylaw said:
Ok. It is all ok, and we will back up the racists as long as they are in our stadium. If I ever saw some Seahawks fans doing that, they would not be backed by me. It is not entitled to call out racist behavior, or violent behavior such as throwing crap at people, in anyone.
Click to expand...

All fan bases for all teams in all sports have racists, and worse, in their memberships. That's the nature of sport, it crosses all demographics in its appeal. The fact that Steeler, Patriot and now Seahawk fan are filling up pages having a pissing contest about it is amusing and more than a little sad.

Hail To The Redskins!
 
Chad said:
And @VoidTerraFirma didn’t say he loved those fans, he said he loved the Jags. You called out those 4 when he called out his love for the Jags, not those 4. And what did the Jags do about those 4? Banned them from the stadium for future events. How many fans at other stadiums have thrown stuff at players and what did those teams do? How did the Seahawks respond to this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...-throw-popcorn-at-injured-navarro-bowman/amp/

Throwing stuff at a player being carted off the field? I’m not sure I can think of something lower for a fan base to do.
Click to expand...

Chad gets it. He is a well-adjusted and humble fan of the team that surely sports the most racially diverse fan base in the nation.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
All this entitled whining just makes me love the Jags even more.
Click to expand...
@Chad VTF should love his team. They are a good team. I am not in a place where I can look at the video you Linked, but I am sure it is some crappy behavior from some Seahawks fans. I deplore that and I hope that they are banned.

But you are missing my point. Check out the above quote. VTF Said that the entitled whining made him like his team better. My sole point is that it is not entitled whining to complain about racist or violent behavior no matter what team you are or no matter what team you are playing. Or for that matter, what happened just before the racist behavior. VTF has better reasons to like his team then the fact that there have been complaints about those isolated racist tolerance and violent acts.

As far as the Seahawks and their behavior,
I didn’t see what happened, but I hope that Jefferson is fined for his ejection from that game. The Seahawks are in a low place as far as I am concerned, and their crappy behavior is not supported by me. Thecompetitive challenges do not put them in as low a place as this recent rash of bad behavior does. All that behavior does show me that they are not in a place where they can be professional and keep their heads in the game and on what they are supposed to be doing.

But none of that disqualifies them from complaining about racist behavior. It is not entitled to do so. Calling that entitled amounts to victim blaming. And again, I am not saying the whole Jag fan base did it or should be punished or judged by it. I am just reacting to the word entitled in connection with complaining about that sort of thing.

I am probably going too far in a football thread in a guitar forum to try to make my point. But racism doesn’t just happen at Nazi rallies.

VTF should like his team. And the Seahawks have nothing to crow about. But they can still complain about racism, and should. And if any of their fans engage in it or any other sort of behavior such as throwing things at players, it should be punished immediately. It is the one thing I like least about the success of the Seahawks. The behavior of some fans.
 
Last edited:
Ok, Forget it. I am done trying to make my point. You guys would be too much fun and good new friends if I ever met you in person so it is not worth arguing about here in this forum. I just intend on calling out racism wherever and whenever I see it.
 
Last edited:
sunvalleylaw said:
@Chad VTF should love his team. They are a good team. I am not in a place where I can look at the video you Linked, but I am sure it is some crappy behavior from some Seahawks fans. I deplore that and I hope that they are banned.

But you are missing my point. Check out the above quote. VTF Said that the entitled whining made him like his team better. My sole point is that it is not entitled whining to complain about racist or violent behavior no matter what team you are or no matter what team you are playing. Or for that matter, what happened just before the racist behavior. VTF has better reasons to like his team then the fact that there have been complaints about those isolated racist tolerance and violent acts.

As far as the Seahawks and their behavior,
I didn’t see what happened, but I hope that Jefferson is fined for his ejection from that game. The Seahawks are in a low place as far as I am concerned, and their crappy behavior is not supported by me. Thecompetitive challenges do not put them in as low a place as this recent rash of bad behavior does. All that behavior does show me that they are not in a place where they can be professional and keep their heads in the game and on what they are supposed to be doing.

But none of that disqualifies them from complaining about racist behavior. It is not entitled to do so. Calling that entitled amounts to victim blaming. And again, I am not saying the whole Jag fan base did it or should be punished or judged by it. I am just reacting to the word entitled in connection with complaining about that sort of thing.

I am probably going too far in a football thread in a guitar forum to try to make my point. But racism doesn’t just happen at Nazi rallies.

VTF should like his team. And the Seahawks have nothing to crow about. But they can still complain about racism, and should. And if any of their fans engage in it or any other sort of behavior such as throwing things at players, it should be punished immediately. It is the one thing I like least about the success of the Seahawks. The behavior of some fans.
Click to expand...

@VoidTerraFirma ’s Post was below the post of a Pats fan posting a pic vindicating the Steelers catch was no good. There was no mention in the post he was posting under anything about the the fans throwing shit. The fans that throw shit, should be banned for life, no doubt about it. But your post came off as the team you love has some bad apples as fans, so you shouldn’t brag about liking them. Maybe I read too much into it but that’s how I read it.

BTW, the article I linked was Seahawks fans throwing popcorn and trash at a 49ers player being carted off the field.
 
Chad said:
Maybe I read too much into it but that’s how I read it.

BTW, the article I linked was Seahawks fans throwing popcorn and trash at a 49ers player being carted off the field.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was not what I meant. He should brag about his team. They kick my team’s ass. Inter webz miscommunication. And those particular Seahawks fans should be banned. I like the Niners as a strong rival. But you don’t pull shit like that ever. And probably especially with your Home conference rival.

Ok, let’s turn on some fuzz pedals and carry on. :)
 
Jbird said:
I am not by any means a Steelers fan. In fact most of the time I want the other team to win. But you do realize that he caught that ball on the 2 yard line, and then stretched the ball out to get a touchdown? If he would have run 10 yards with the ball, then dove for the endzone, ball hitting the ground, it would still be an incomplete pass according to NFL rules, since he didn't maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground :wink:
Click to expand...

No, because running with the ball establishes control. The rule is not complicated, but people get mad about what they think they see, misquote the rulebook, and declare it a travesty.

You realize the alternative is that all of those passes where the receiver loses control on impact with the ground become fumbles, right? So offense tanks, people get hurt fighting for the loose ball ten times a game, and or receivers stop trying to make a catch that is likely to become a fumble instead of a drop. You'd probably see more sacks, and therefore more injured QBs, as they need to take the extra moment to judge whether a pass is too risky.

The rule isn't even all that different from years back, and if anything, is more generous to receivers than ever. Used to be any part of the ball touched the ground at all, it was incomplete. Now it can even budge a little, provided it's deemed in control.
 
ermghoti said:
No, because running with the ball establishes control. The rule is not complicated, but people get mad about what they think they see, misquote the rulebook, and declare it a travesty.

You realize the alternative is that all of those passes where the receiver loses control on impact with the ground become fumbles, right? So offense tanks, people get hurt fighting for the loose ball ten times a game, and or receivers stop trying to make a catch that is likely to become a fumble instead of a drop. You'd probably see more sacks, and therefore more injured QBs, as they need to take the extra moment to judge whether a pass is too risky.

The rule isn't even all that different from years back, and if anything, is more generous to receivers than ever. Used to be any part of the ball touched the ground at all, it was incomplete. Now it can even budge a little, provided it's deemed in control.
Click to expand...
But he made a football move. He just didn't catch it and then fall to the ground.

My whole point is: How many 'moves' does a receiver have to make before he is then a ball carrier and the catch is completed? 1? 5? 10? The answer is ONE, and he made ONE. He is then a ball carrier, and as soon as the ball crosses the goal line, which it did, and he had possesion, which he did, it becomes a touchdown. I've seen the video, as have you. Obviously we disagree and can't change each others minds, and there are 'experts' on both sides of it. I happen to see it as He caught the ball, turned to the endzone, stretched out the ball for a TD, crossed the plane of the goal line still in possesion of the ball, and only then after the ball touches the ground does he lose possesion.

You see it (simplified) as he caught the ball and fell to the ground, losing control, thereby negating a catch. I happen to disagree with that basic statement/assumtion.

It is what it is, and I happen to think that the NFL needs to work on the rule, if so many people (and just not us) can disagree on it.
 
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

1: "Football move" was eliminated from the rulebook in favor of the more specific language that now appears.

EDIT 1a: The football move/becoming a runner language is irrelevant, because he was going to the ground, which is tightly defined in the link.

2. Stretching for yardage has never been a condition of possession.

3. Refer to my previous post for the inevitable consequences of deeming a stretch as a football move/condition of reception.

A "catch" is an entirely imaginary and arbitrary concept. Therefore whatever the rulebook states is a catch, is, and whatever is excluded, isn't. That play was an obvious example of a non-catch, based on the NFL rules as written. If you want a concrete definition of a catch, if you go fishing, and eat a fish, that one was caught. Anything else is open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Jbird said:
.... I happen to think that the NFL needs to work on the rule, if so many people (and just not us) can disagree on it.
Click to expand...

The rules can be anything, and people will disagree. The specific problem here is that sports reporters are allowed to mis-state facts and rules without correction. We may or may not see eye to eye on this play eventually, but if you apply the rule dispassionately, it's just not a catch. If reporters that try to apply football move/becoming a runner to this play were publicly corrected by their employers, there wouldn't be as much confusion. Hell, "football move" has been gone for over a full season, I want to yell every time I hear it from a commentator or announcer.
 
So if a receiver caught the ball on the 20 yard line, ran all the way toward the endzone (20 yards) tripped over his own shoe laces, and as he was falling he stretched the ball toward the endzone, only to have the ball get jarred loose when it touches the ground just after the ball crosses the goalline, it's an incomplete pass?

That's what you guys are saying...

And if you are not saying that...10 yards and trips over his own shoelaces, etc etc. an incomplete pass? No?

5 yards?

3 yards?

You see where I am going with this?
 
Jbird said:
So if a receiver caught the ball on the 20 yard line, ran all the way toward the endzone (20 yards) tripped over his own shoe laces, and as he was falling he stretched the ball toward the endzone, only to have the ball get jarred loose when it touches the ground just after the ball crosses the goalline, it's an incomplete pass?

That's what you guys are saying...

And if you are not saying that...10 yards and trips over his own shoelaces, etc etc. an incomplete pass? No?

5 yards?

3 yards?

You see where I am going with this?
Click to expand...

Yes, where you are going is refusing to read the rule and posting non sequitors.

This is the section you are repeatedly disregarding:

6YaZMGt.jpg


So, per your current example, the reception is made when he controls the ball with his hands or arms, touches inbounds with both feet or one other body part, and establishes control by taking two steps. He crosses the goal line as a runner, the reception rule is no longer at issue. Touchdown. There is absolutely no other appropriate ruling. This happens regularly.

That example has no bearing whatsoever on the James drop, because Item 1 applies, as he was in the process of going to the ground before he made any semblance of establishing control. Reaching forward does not establish control, maintaining control of the ball past the initial impact is the only measure of control in this situation. Had you wanted to make an absurd hypothetical, you could have your klutzy receiver grab the ball one handed, stumble on his toes and free hand into the endzone, and drop the ball as his belly finally contacts the turf. That would probably be ruled a drop, but it's also impossible to occur without regaining or totally losing control, so it doesn't really matter.

Jordy Nelson was ruled to have dropped a pass in the same manner as James after review in tonight's game, only while in the field of play. The rule is the same everywhere on the field, and it is called consistently in that manner when the elements are observed in real time or in review. It's deliberately written to be inflexible and unambiguous. That means it sometimes doesn't jibe with the eye test, probably most notably on the infamous Calvin Johnson no-catch. That play shows how biased towards objectivity the rule is; even in a case where the receiver voluntarily set the ball down, it is still a failure to control throughout the yadda yadda yadda.

The advantage of the inflexible objectivity is, despite the bleating to the contrary, it is easy to consistently apply the rule, unlike the utter chaos that circulates around interference and holding calls.

More reading:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/t...lers-apparent-game-winning-td-was-overturned/

He can only cite one example where the rule was misapplied in review.
 
Jbird said:
So if a receiver caught the ball on the 20 yard line, ran all the way toward the endzone (20 yards) tripped over his own shoe laces, and as he was falling he stretched the ball toward the endzone, only to have the ball get jarred loose when it touches the ground just after the ball crosses the goalline, it's an incomplete pass?

That's what you guys are saying...

And if you are not saying that...10 yards and trips over his own shoelaces, etc etc. an incomplete pass? No?

5 yards?

3 yards?

You see where I am going with this?
Click to expand...

But what about the 30 yard line?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
 
smorgdonkey said:
That was a Steelers touchdown.

Perhaps the worst reviewed call made in pro sports that I have seen.
Click to expand...

It's OK that you have no idea what the rules are. I mean, given that the rules have been posted 3-4 times on this page alone, it's a bit odd, but it's still OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top