The Nation's Tears: Volume II

Status
Not open for further replies.

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Helen Keller could have caught that

Please don’t fuck this up (repeated numerous times) followed by worst case is FG. (Just wait)

Shut up tony! Shut up tony! (On the td replay)

Stunned silence until his brain finally processes the interception.


Underrated is the constant checking of the front yard like he was squatting in the house or he’s waiting for his parents to come home and berate him for being up past bedtime.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
18,971
Pittsburgh, PA
Agreed. Dial back to a few years ago, when the received needed to "make a football move". The control to the ground rule has brought on tons of calls that allow for most to not even know what is a catch anymore. More fumbles? Fine....For a player to catch the ball, turn, go down, and have the ball wiggle or come out due to stretching the arm, is just dumb. Stretching the arm and not down? Fumble. Too many delays/replays/challenges/inconsistencies....
The ball wiggled not because he stretched his arm, but because he landed on the ground after diving. He just happened to be stretching his arm while landing, which made holding onto the ball more difficult.

It has nothing to do with the football move thing, or whatever the current language is. If you're falling to the ground while catching the ball, you have to be holding the ball when your body hits the ground. Not just when your feet hits the ground, or your knees, but your body. When YOU go to the ground.

In your world, if a guy Superman dives for a ball, catches it, the lower half of his body scrapes the ground, and then the ball comes flying out when he slams to the turf.... "FUMBLE!!" Is that really what people want?

This rule is really, really, really not complicated. It's way less complicated than the rules for a catch made while standing up, in fact.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Too many people want more gray area not less with rules. If we are going to go with possession, not take it to the ground in the endzone. There are going to be a bunch or crazy TDS and non TDS. A guy skies above the DB catches it has possession in the #D area that is TDville, but as he lands the DB strips it. Is it a TD? Do we super slo mo every broken up play in the endzone to see if the receiver "had possession" I can think of at least two times Gronk had the ball while airborne,but while falling had it knocked away.

Changing the rule makes it worse, not better.
 

GoDa

New Member
Sep 25, 2017
962
This guy seems really lonely and sad.
I'm with you. That struck as about the most pathetic 10 minutes of video.

Poor guy. Alone. Dressed in all his Steelers gear with his Terrible Towel (tm), yet filming/streaming himself as he attempts to reach out for any kind of human connection. The room itself echoes his sadness with each scream and curse.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I'm with you. That struck as about the most pathetic 10 minutes of video.

Poor guy. Alone. Dressed in all his Steelers gear with his Terrible Towel (tm), yet filming/streaming himself as he attempts to reach out for any kind of human connection. The room itself echoes his sadness with each scream and curse.
It gets worse, he woke up this morning, for no known reason, as an insect.
 

21st Century Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2006
762
The ball wiggled not because he stretched his arm, but because he landed on the ground after diving. He just happened to be stretching his arm while landing, which made holding onto the ball more difficult.

It has nothing to do with the football move thing, or whatever the current language is. If you're falling to the ground while catching the ball, you have to be holding the ball when your body hits the ground. Not just when your feet hits the ground, or your knees, but your body. When YOU go to the ground.

In your world, if a guy Superman dives for a ball, catches it, the lower half of his body scrapes the ground, and then the ball comes flying out when he slams to the turf.... "FUMBLE!!" Is that really what people want?

This rule is really, really, really not complicated. It's way less complicated than the rules for a catch made while standing up, in fact.
No, I am talking about just going back to the old rules. If a guy is Superman dives, and the ball comes out, incomplete. He would not have made a football move. Yesterday, the receiver caught the ball, and made a football move, THEN after hip down and over the goal line, he bobbled the ball. He made a football move. The "what is/is not a catch" of the last few years is numbing.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
No, I am talking about just going back to the old rules. If a guy is Superman dives, and the ball comes out, incomplete. He would not have made a football move. Yesterday, the receiver caught the ball, and made a football move, THEN after hip down and over the goal line, he bobbled the ball. He made a football move. The "what is/is not a catch" of the last few years is numbing.
What was the football move he made? He twisted his body as he fell down and reached out.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
No, I am talking about just going back to the old rules. If a guy is Superman dives, and the ball comes out, incomplete. He would not have made a football move. Yesterday, the receiver caught the ball, and made a football move, THEN after hip down and over the goal line, he bobbled the ball. He made a football move. The "what is/is not a catch" of the last few years is numbing.
How do you define "football move"? That was the problem with the old rule; noone could explain what was or wasn't a football move, because it wasn't defined.

In the heat of the moment, I didn't like the reversal all that much, despite the obvious benefit to my team. But I can understand the need for a clear definition of a catch. I get that Shank and Bob Ryan will go on about "I know a catch when I see it" nonsense, but that's not really how it works.

One could relax the criteria for a catch. But other posters have noted that there are some downsides, so it's not clear there's a better solution. Anyway, if anything, this latest episode pretty much assures that the catch rule will be changed again, maybe not for the better.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Too many people want more gray area not less with rules. If we are going to go with possession, not take it to the ground in the endzone. There are going to be a bunch or crazy TDS and non TDS. A guy skies above the DB catches it has possession in the #D area that is TDville, but as he lands the DB strips it. Is it a TD? Do we super slo mo every broken up play in the endzone to see if the receiver "had possession" I can think of at least two times Gronk had the ball while airborne,but while falling had it knocked away.

Changing the rule makes it worse, not better.
People want a rule that produces the desired result for their team on every questionable play.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
98% of the outrage over the overturn is because the Pats won the game.
Bill Barnwell makes some stupid suggestions to "improve" the NFL catch rule. They are:

1) A player becomes a runner as soon as he has control and has two feet (or one of the other body parts that count) inbounds. No "football move". So at that point you can extend the ball over the goal line for a score, regardless of what happens after that.

1B) While we're at it, fumbles into the attacking end zone get returned to the offense at the 20-yard line. Effectively a 20-yard penalty plus loss of down.

2) Basically the same suggestion as #1, receiver becomes a runner with control + 2 feet, can fumble immediately. Unclear how Barnwell would distinguish this "idea" from the previous one. He recognizes that this creates a lot more fumbles, and argues that "fumbles are fun".

3) Create a committee of a few dozen ex-receivers and defensive backs, who watch NFL games live and vote on catch vs no-catch, in real time, American Idol style, as a replay occurs. Like jury nullification, the NFL can provide rules as guidance but their judgment (intended to be the proverbial "50 people at a bar") carries the day.

Not seeing much of a solution here. #3 is pretty much anarchy.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Some Steeler fans whining because they had to play without their best defender and beat receiver.

Ok well....

Hightower
Edelman
Branch
Hogan

I mean.....
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Bill Barnwell makes some stupid suggestions to "improve" the NFL catch rule. They are:

1) A player becomes a runner as soon as he has control and has two feet (or one of the other body parts that count) inbounds. No "football move". So at that point you can extend the ball over the goal line for a score, regardless of what happens after that.

1B) While we're at it, fumbles into the attacking end zone get returned to the offense at the 20-yard line. Effectively a 20-yard penalty plus loss of down.

2) Basically the same suggestion as #1, receiver becomes a runner with control + 2 feet, can fumble immediately. Unclear how Barnwell would distinguish this "idea" from the previous one. He recognizes that this creates a lot more fumbles, and argues that "fumbles are fun".

3) Create a committee of a few dozen ex-receivers and defensive backs, who watch NFL games live and vote on catch vs no-catch, in real time, American Idol style, as a replay occurs. Like jury nullification, the NFL can provide rules as guidance but their judgment (intended to be the proverbial "50 people at a bar") carries the day.

Not seeing much of a solution here. #3 is pretty much anarchy.
I agree that Barnwell's article is full of logical fallacies. When he starts by saying that "everyone that saw the play knows it was a catch", I was tempted to stop right there, given that Tony Romo started to speculate that the play would be ruled incomplete due to the non-catch rule.

But, his first solution isn't exactly what you stated. His solution is to call it a catch if the ball is in the receiver's possession as it breaks the plane of the goal line. Doesn't matter what happens after the plane is broken. Basically, the receiver and runner are treated the same way on scoring plays (runners cannot fumble after the plane is broken either). That one has at least some merit. I think the problem is that it creates issues for determining possession when the receiver is already in the end zone.

The fumble into the attacking end zone proposal is not a bad idea. The existing rule is silly.

Still, his proposals are clearly a reaction to make some specific plays against the Patriots be touchdowns. So it's hard to take him seriously.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory

Chris Harris Jr. on Pats-Steelers game: “It sucks ... You kind of get tired of seeing the Patriots continue to dominate the AFC, but it’s going to be a crazy playoffs. It kind of makes you jealous that you can’t be able to look forward to playing in January.’’
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,086
I agree that Barnwell's article is full of logical fallacies. When he starts by saying that "everyone that saw the play knows it was a catch", I was tempted to stop right there, given that Tony Romo started to speculate that the play would be ruled incomplete due to the non-catch rule.
Not really. It took him about 15 views of the replay, slowed down to about 1/4 speed, before he finally started thinking it was incomplete.

If the NFL wants a system where catches are decided in a super-slowed down replay format to make sure everything is right, then the current system is pretty good.

But if they want to go back to the old days, when you would see a play real-time and decide if someone caught it or not, that's fine too to me, but it would take a huge change to the current culture of the NFL. Someone suggested that catch/no-catch replay reviews could be done in full speed video replays only, without slowing down the tape. That would definitely change things, but it worked decently for about 40-50 years so maybe it could work again.
 
Last edited:

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Here's my problem... a ball making a big enough revolution that you go from seeing no laces - lace - no laces again is not a "little wiggle" "barely moved" etc (as being described by many in the press upset with teh call)... a revolution that happened with the back nose of the ball touching the ground no less. Not sure why people are ignoring that both the back and front of the football end up touching the ground with a ball that rotates and one hand completely off it throughout the going to the ground portion.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Not really. It took him about 15 views of the replay, slowed down to about 1/4 speed, before he finally started thinking it was incomplete.

If the NFL wants a system where catches are decided in a super-slowed down replay format to make sure everything is right, then the current system is pretty good. But if they want to go back to the old days, when you would see a play real-time and decide if someone caught it or not, that's fine too to me, but it would take a huge change to the current culture of the NFL. Someone suggested that catch/no-catch replay reviews could be done in full speed video replays only, without slowing down the tape. That would definitely change things, but it worked decently for about 40-50 years so maybe it could work again.
Basically, you're proposing changing the types of plays that are under review. Which is fine. What's ironic is that one of the key drivers for instant replay was for determining whether catches were inbounds or not. The Houston Oilers lost a playoff game to (even more ironic) the Steelers when the Steelers receiver (I think it was Stallworth in 1979 AFCCG) caught the ball a couple of steps out of bounds, but the play was ruled a TD on the field.

Of course, if the let catch/no-catch calls made on the field stand, then there will be an uproar the first time the officials get one incorrect.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Geez I totally forgot about him too. They're down their best two linebackers, two of their best three receivers, and one of their best DTs. Not to mention an all pro right tackle and even his backup.

Steelers can't complain about the injuries.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
The arm strength on that first 25 yardish completion to Gronk was insane. He's basically mid hop with no leverage when he throws a laser.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Here is the final Pats drive with audio. See if you can detect the moment where Nantz and Romo have their heart ripped directly out of their chest.


On the 2 point conversion, the safety cheated over and jumped what he thought would be a slant. Why would it be a slant???

I almost felt bad for Davis. No one can cover Gronk 1 on 1 and they left him there the entire half. Then he nearly gets that INT. Then he's absolutely pancaked by Allen on the Lewis TD run. Then the 2 pointer.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,086
On the 2 point conversion, the safety cheated over and jumped what he thought would be a slant. Why would it be a slant???.
It's almost always a slant to Gronk in that situation. I thought it would be a slant, the Steelers thought it would be a slant. Great call by McDaniels to make that one a fade.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
The Patriots currently have 2 times as many players on the IR than the Steelers have on all their injury listings (14-7) according to pf-ref.
Also were down to their 3rd string RT.
It's the Steelers, though, so they probably had guys that were hurt but that they weren't listing on the injury report.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Here is the final Pats drive with audio. See if you can detect the moment where Nantz and Romo have their heart ripped directly out of their chest.


Prescient call from Romo, right after the near-interception: "I can tell you right now, when Tom Brady, gets a reprieve...or something happens...he is a killer"
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
It's almost always a slant to Gronk in that situation. I thought it would be a slant, the Steelers thought it would be a slant. Great call by McDaniels to make that one a fade.
4 people in the building knew it was a fade. Brady, McDaniels, Gronk... and Tony Romo.

Here is the final Pats drive with audio. See if you can detect the moment where Nantz and Romo have their heart ripped directly out of their chest.
What a goddamn clinic. That's the difference between having a healthy Gronk at crunch time, and not. Sure, Brady can still win a super bowl without him, but against a legitimately great team, Gronk is a difference-maker every time he lines up.

The pocket-presence shuffling around was vintage Brady, too. Much better pass rush than against most teams (at least on those plays), much smaller space to work with, and he's just smoothly hopping around from safe spot to safe spot like Super Mario.
 
Last edited:

kelpapa

Costanza's Hero
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
4,637
It's almost always a slant to Gronk in that situation. I thought it would be a slant, the Steelers thought it would be a slant. Great call by McDaniels to make that one a fade.
The weird thing about the play is the corner has help inside. The safety cheats before the snap and then sprints toward Gronk at the line, and the corner bites inside hard. It's obviously going to be tough for the corner even with the help to stop the slant, because Gronk, but he has no help outside. He has to stay outside on that, right?
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,681
Amstredam
A fun thing I noticed re watching it. The two point play was actually the WR screen they used in the SB as well.
Brady must have a read to decide if he is going to run the screen on the left side of the formation or the fade on the right side.

Pit was all over the WR screen so it was probably an easy read.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,086
A fun thing I noticed re watching it. The two point play was actually the WR screen they used in the SB as well.
Brady must have a read to decide if he is going to run the screen on the left side of the formation or the fade on the right side.

Pit was all over the WR screen so it was probably an easy read.
Great catch, I hadn't noticed that before.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,711
That had to have been Slater's first offensive play of the night as well.

(edit: maybe had one or two in the first half IIRC)
 
Last edited:

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
The weird thing about the play is the corner has help inside. The safety cheats before the snap and then sprints toward Gronk at the line, and the corner bites inside hard. It's obviously going to be tough for the corner even with the help to stop the slant, because Gronk, but he has no help outside. He has to stay outside on that, right?
Stopping Gronk is impossible but I think it was just played (and probably coached) poorly overall. The safety is too deep. He isn't getting there to stop a slant on the goal line or a yard deep in the end zone. From a scheme perspective, the CB definitely should be playing with outside leverage and funneling him into the middle assuming safety help is there.

Knowing the Patriots' tendencies, its hard to think what play might have developed out of that formation that the deep safety could have helped prevent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.