I think they're done with the guests for the night now...which should be interesting since this is the "fill time" portion of the broadcast.
Week 2 NFL Game Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I love Pat. It’s hilarious when he’s telling a story, stops immediately to excitedly say something about the game, then just carries on with the story like nothing happened
Goff: I will now look at the replay of my second terrible fumble while stress-eating even more delicious and extra buttery popcorn.
Heh, McAfee a little more explicit than Al Michaels about the spread being the sole remaining drama.
McAfee is great, I wish I had enough time every day to listen to his full podcast/show. As it is the YouTube clips are always entertaining.
I'm saying the call would be 1) incorrect and 2) directly alter the outcome of the game. Blatantly incorrect calls that directly award wins tend to hurt officials career trajectory.
McAfee's two different breakdowns of the worst fake punt play in NFL history when he was with the Colts are great
I don't get how 1 is true:
https://larrybrownsports.com/football/russell-wilson-safety-titans-end-zone/584178
The ball is in the endzone when the guy grabs him... it maybe briefly exits the endzone while he's being spun.
The only way that he's down at the 1 is if you arbitrarily stop the play not when he's grabbed, nor when he throws it, but halfway through the spin.
It would not at all be blatantly incorrect if anything it's blatantly incorrect to say he was outside the endzone, he spends 90% of that play with the ball in the endzone.
Forward progress can’t be called in the endzone. So it’s either down at the 1 or an incompletion I think
It should have been either grounding (incompletion but it never made it to the LOS), incomplete, or in the grasp and a safety. Any of those is fine. Forward progress makes no sense.
It's telling that I have not seen a single person in sports media arguing it is a good call.
Or it's intentional grounding, which is a safety when the QB is in his own endzone.
I have no idea I was just repeating the reasoning I’d seen earlier in the thread
I think he got outside the tackle box. Since the ball was snapped from the far left hash he only has to get past the middle of the field there and he released it at about the far right hash.
They theoretically could have called him in the grasp in the EZ.
Can someone explain why Dan Campbell got another chance at coaching? He was like one degree separated from Jim Tomsula IIRC.
He went 5-7 taking over a 1-3 team, it's not like he was a total disaster.
Stop with this shit. It's not just black guys doing the taunting out there. I had a front row seat to one of the best taunters the game has ever seen, and he wasn't black:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDAHqN9nFT8
Like I said, I hate the way the rule is being called now, but this isn't a race issue. If Gronk does what he did for most of his career, he'll get slapped with more than a few penalties himself. As will another guy that plays the same position, and taunts on almost every play.
https://arrowheadaddict.com/2017/09/20/touchdowns-and-taunts-good-bad-travis-kelce-chiefs/
As a fan, I'd rather see Travis Kelce get hit in the mouth than get hit with a penalty, but I also know that nothing aggravates me more than watching him get away with shit, only to have the guy he's taunting get the flag for responding. If it were up to me, I'd be fine letting them go after each other and let them figure it out amongst themselves. But that's not reality and I'm sure it's not what a multi-billion dollar organization wants to see from their product. I also miss hockey fights.
It's close - he's still inside the tackle box when he gets hit, the spin takes him probably just outside it, but even then I'm not sure the ball gets back to the line of scrimmage before going out of bounds. Does the ball have to cross the LOS in bounds? I don't know the answer to that.
After watching the replay of the Russell Wilson non-safety multiple times, the most charitable interpretation I can come up with for the officials is that the official "amidships" around the goal line despite being on the wrong side of Wilson on the play with no good view assumed Wilson had been pushed back into the end zone by a closing defender from around the 1-yard line. He did not reckon on Wilson being stupid enough to run into the end zone on his own. He blows the whistle with Wilson in the grasp in the end zone as a protective measure (for Wilson). As the whistle blows, Wilson fires off a desperation heave that may or may not have reached the LOS. The correct call should have been a safety as there was no defender knocking Wilson into the end zone.
Pat replacing Griese on the list of awesome things you would like to see that will never happen
For the record Favre cost the Pats the only two non-playoff appearances during the Brady era (2002, 2008)
No. It can cross the LOS out of bounds and it's still considered across. In order of most correct to least correct, the play should have been ruled:
1) Incomplete
2) Forward progress at the 1.
3) Safety
https://ibb.co/nsyzmN5
Take a look at the still image. That's when the defender makes contact. That's where the ball is spotted. Nothing after that point is relevant unless contact with the defender is completely severed.
It doesn't matter that Wilson was running backwards. If you rule progress the ball is spotted at it's most forward point during the contact. If you don't rule progress then it's an incompletion. There is no way to get to a ruling of safety.
Combining this with the above, had the officials ruled safety, I would fully expect replay to overturn it. This play IS reviewable. Forward progress is not reviewable, but the spot of forward progress is reviewable. Replay didn't even take a look here.
Thanks, that's a good pic. Most of the clips I've seen begin after Wilson is in the end zone. Looking at that, I see marking at the 1.