Nfl 2013 (3 Viewers)

[jazzeum]

You're a riot too Brad, never missing a chance to take a shot at anything to do with Boston.

Keep up the mediocre work.

Whatever you say Mr. Guerrero :rolleyes2: Time to move on, and elsewhere.

 

[Warrior]

Newton can do all the dancing and celebrating he wants.

My Fathers 93 year old neighbor has a term for what goes on in todays NFL when someone catches a pass, makes a tackle or gets a first down; I'll tell it to you when me meet in person someday at a show............

And yes, Brady is unreal, 59 seconds left and he marches the Patriots down the field and has a last shot to win it.

He truly is the GOAT, no doubt about it in my mind, it's been a joy to watch him the past 12 years, going to miss him when he's gone, there will never been another one like him again.

 

[Louis Badolato]

not interested in getting involved in the merits of the Jets/Pats/Brady/Newton discussion...

and not to beat a "dead horse" either...

but this is an interesting point of view from the #2 guy officiating in the NFL...

NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino put his stamp of approval on the referees' decision to pick up a pass interference flag in the end zone on the final play of the New England Patriots' 24-20 loss to the Carolina Panthers on Monday night, saying they used "proper mechanics" to make a "tight judgment call."

The game ended on a throw from Tom Brady to tight end Rob Gronkowski in the back of the end zone that was intercepted as time expired. Gronkowski appeared to have been held by linebacker Luke Kuechly on the play. A flag was thrown, but after a conference with the other officials, referee Clete Blakeman announced there was no penalty on the play. Had the penalty been upheld, the Patriots would have had one untimed play from the 1-yard line to try and score the winning touchdown.


The Rule In Question
Monday night's officials determined there was no chance for tight end Rob Gronkowski to catch the last pass thrown by Tom Brady. Here is the rule in question:


Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3 Permissible Acts

Article 3 Permissible Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.

Blandino drew a key distinction between a defensive player making contact with an opponent and "restricting" him.

"The issue isn't the contact [between Kuechly and Gronkowski], the issue is the restriction and does it occur prior to the ball being touched," Blandino explained Tuesday during his segment on the NFL Network. "At full speed the officials made a tight judgment call and they determined that the restriction occurred just as the ball was being touched [by Panthers safety Robert Lester]. Again, at full speed you can see why they made that call."

Pass interference penalties are not reviewable, which means the officials had to make a judgment call on when the contact Kuechly was making with Gronkowski became "restrictive." In their judgment, Blandino said, they ruled that the "restriction occurred simultaneously with the ball being touched. When you watch it at full speed you can see why they would make that call on the field."

Following the game, Blakeman defended the decision, saying Gronkowski's distance from the ball rendered the pass uncatchable and there was "a determination that, in essence, uncatchability -- that the ball was intercepted at or about the same time the primary contact against the receiver occurred."

Less than 12 hours after the non-call cost his team a shot at winning the game, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was not any more inclined to discuss the play than he was following the contest.

"Whatever the officials think is the only thing that matters," Belichick said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters. "They're the ones that make the calls. It's their explanation and their judgment that we all have to abide by."

Blakeman was followed off the field by an irate Brady, who gave the official an earful but was more measured in his comments at a postgame news conference.

"I wish it wouldn't come down to that," Brady said. "I think there are plenty of plays we could have made. But it did, and they are going to make a call or they are not going to make a call. ... We can play better than that."

Gronkowski was asked if he felt he was held on the play, and he responded, "I've gotta rewatch, but if you saw that, then I would say yeah."

Kuechly said his focus was on Gronkowski and therefore didn't see Brady release the ball.

"Honestly, I didn't see the throw," Kuechly said. "I didn't see where the ball ended up. I just saw his eyes get big and his hands go up. When that happens, the ball is going to him. I didn't see what happened after the play. I just knew there was a flag down, a bunch of people around the refs. They waved it off and the crowd cheered."

Panthers coach Ron Rivera said Tuesday that he is fine with the way the game ended.

"We've been on the other end of those calls too, as well," Rivera said. "As far as I'm concerned, that was the decision -- the decision we live with. No matter how much people want to talk about it and rehash, rehash, it's not going to change."

Rivera acknowledged, however, that he would have felt differently if the Panthers (7-3) were on the other end of a similarly controversial call.

"Without a doubt -- it's human nature," he said. "You want the good things, the right things, things that you believe are correct."

Actually, I saw Blandino live on the NFL network, and the way he explained it, in fact, the refs blew the call. He stated that the issue was whether the restrictive contact with the receiver occurred before or after the ball being tipped, touched or intercepted by the defensive player in front of the receiver. He said the back judge followed the correct procedure by throwing the flag when he saw restrictive contact, then asking the side judge whether the restrictive contact was before or after the interception. Blandino said that at full speed, he could see why the refs made the judgment call. However, he would not answer the question of whether the refs got it right, repeatedly falling back on the fact it was a judgment call, under tight circumstances at full speed, so he would not downgrade the crew. That being said, on replay, it was clear that the restrictive contact came before the interception, so by Blandino's explanation of the rule, the call was incorrect.

 

[Warrior]

Actually, I saw Blandino live on the NFL network, and the way he explained it, in fact, the refs blew the call. He stated that the issue was whether the restrictive contact with the receiver occurred before or after the ball being tipped, touched or intercepted by the defensive player in front of the receiver. He said the back judge followed the correct procedure by throwing the flag when he saw restrictive contact, then asking the side judge whether the restrictive contact was before or after the interception. Blandino said that at full speed, he could see why the refs made the judgment call. However, he would not answer the question of whether the refs got it right, repeatedly falling back on the fact it was a judgment call, under tight circumstances at full speed, so he would not downgrade the crew. That being said, on replay, it was clear that the restrictive contact came before the interception, so by Blandino's explanation of the rule, the call was incorrect.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that the explanation gets twisted all around to cover the refs collective *****.

Twist it around whatever way you want, Gronk was interfered with BEFORE the ball was picked off, end of story, end of discussion.

You don't throw a flag and then pick it up; if the shoe was on the other foot and the Patriots won the game like that, all the haters out there would be having a field day today over it.

The fact that they are 7-3 with three starters on defense out and having a bunch of rookie WR's and Gronk out for most of the year and Welkers replacement out for most of the year and their 3rd down back out most of the year is amazing to me.

That said, with Dennard, Gregory and Talib all out this week; Michael, bet your house on Denver, they are going to roll the Patriots and the division is going to get interesting now.

Have a ton of respect for Rex, what does their GM do now, you cannot fire the guy no matter what happens from here on out................

 

[Panzer ace]

My Fathers 93 year old neighbor has a term for what goes on in todays NFL when someone catches a pass, makes a tackle or gets a first down; I'll tell it to you when me meet in person someday at a show............

And yes, Brady is unreal, 59 seconds left and he marches the Patriots down the field and has a last shot to win it.

He truly is the GOAT, no doubt about it in my mind, it's been a joy to watch him the past 12 years, going to miss him when he's gone, there will never been another one like him again.

I got the chance to see Brady play in high school. I didn't appreciate it at the time but it is now one if my most cherished sports memories.

And I can't wait to hear the term for all of the useless celebrations after someone ties their shoe! Now I really need to get up to the Northeast for a show and a Bruins game!

 

[lancer]

I see where Fran Tarkenton has anointed himself as the best Qb of all time. He has allowed that Peyton Manning is ALMOST his equal. He makes the argument that greatness cannot be gauged by number of championships won but by overall achievement and career numbers. His numbers still match up well, considering when he played and how long he has been retired. As a Qb who never won the final Big Game, he would have to make the career numbers over championships argument. Tarkenton was the forerunner of today's mobile Qb's, and he certainly worked with fewer offensive options, but there are a lot of Qb's I would rank ahead of him. Still, he was an exciting Qb to watch, although he drove opponents crazy with his style of play. Despite his arguments, which I agree with to a certain degree, the lack of a championship is a huge drawback for his stand. -- Al

 

[sammy719]

Well Brad looks like a huge game for both our teams this week as my Ravens need a win big time against the Jets this Sunday in reality the ravens need to win all 3 games on this home stand to get back in the playoff hunt, I think they have fixed a few things over the last few weeks now just have to play 4 quarters instead of 2, but thinking they will play well and beat the Jets, I guess if I'm going to think positive it better start now ...Sammy

 

[Panzer ace]

Well Brad looks like a huge game for both our teams this week as my Ravens need a win big time against the Jets this Sunday in reality the ravens need to win all 3 games on this home stand to get back in the playoff hunt, I think they have fixed a few things over the last few weeks now just have to play 4 quarters instead of 2, but thinking they will play well and beat the Jets, I guess if I'm going to think positive it better start now ...Sammy

Sammy-

There are some must win games coming up for lots of us. My Niners coming off of two loses must beat Washington to stay in the conversation. I think the Pats are also in that must win mode too with a tough one against the Broncos. Couple those with the Ravens game and this is going to be a great weekend of football!

 

[Louis Badolato]

Sammy-

There are some must win games coming up for lots of us. My Niners coming off of two loses must beat Washington to stay in the conversation. I think the Pats are also in that must win mode too with a tough one against the Broncos. Couple those with the Ravens game and this is going to be a great weekend of football!

You can add the Giants game to the list, this and every other week, thanks to their unbelievably bad 0-6 start.

The Giants, like 90 percent of the league thanks to the salary cap ensuring "parity", are a mediocre team, that remarkably has a chance to win the incredibly weak NFC East at 8-8 or 9-7. The way the league works today, there are no great teams, a couple of very good teams (Seattle, Denver, the Patriots), a few good teams (Kansas City, Carolina, San Francisco, New Orleans), and the rest of the league are mediocre to bad. Because the rules do not permit any truly great unflawed teams anymore, the Super Bowl has been won by good/mediocre teams that got hot at the right time over the last several years (Giants 10-6, Giants 9-7, Ravens 10-6 to name a few). And don't even get me started on the rule changes.

I wish I could go back in time each Sunday to 1980 through 1990, and watch the golden age of the NFL, when they had the offense-defense balance right, and their were truly dominant great teams winning the super bowl each year, like the 49ers (who won 12-15 games each time they won their 4 titles), the 85 Bears (15-1), the 86 and 90 Giants (14-2 and 13-3). There were no 10-6 or 9-7 Champions in that decade, and you had a very good idea who was going to be playing in the NFC and AFC Championship game by week 10 each year.

Indeed, prior to the year 2000, the most teams to have a better record than the Super Bowl Champion in any given season was 3 in 1997, and in most seasons no more than 1 team had a better regular season record than the champion. Since the year 2000, with the salary cap and the rule changes ensuring a watered down product, 5 teams had a better record than the champ in 2001, 6 teams had a better record than the champ in 2007, 7 teams had a better record in 2010, 9 teams had a better record in 2011 and 8 teams had a better record in 2012. The team with the best regular season record has not won the title since 2003. Frankly, this is no way to run a league, and I see football joining boxing and horseracing as a sport that loses its popularity over the coming years.

 

[jazzeum]

Well Brad looks like a huge game for both our teams this week as my Ravens need a win big time against the Jets this Sunday in reality the ravens need to win all 3 games on this home stand to get back in the playoff hunt, I think they have fixed a few things over the last few weeks now just have to play 4 quarters instead of 2, but thinking they will play well and beat the Jets, I guess if I'm going to think positive it better start now ...Sammy

Sammy, it will be a close game but let's face it both teams aren't really that good. I'm not sure what problems the Ravens have but Geno Smith is not a good QB (at least not yet anyway). I guess he's a typical rookie: inconsistent. Sometimes he looks good, sometime bloody awful. The trick is not to put him in a position where he's going to cost them the game. The Jets run defense is very good but the secondary poor. Milliner has not looked good and Cromartie is consistently getting beat.

That Rex has them at 5-5 is nothing short of miraculous. They've gotten a couple of breaks too (Buccaneer and Patriots games).

 

[Panzer ace]

As far as I am concerned the strangest stat of the year belongs to Cleveland. In 2013 The Browns are the only team to not allow a 300 yard passer or 100 yard rusher.

 

[mikemiller1955]

As far as I am concerned the strangest stat of the year belongs to Cleveland. In 2013 The Browns are the only team to not allow a 300 yard passer or 100 yard rusher.

I just looked that up...I couldn't believe it...but it's true...how odd...they are 4-6 and have not allowed 300 in the air or 100 on the ground by an individual rusher...their defense is overall 4th against the pass and 8th against the rush...I would have lost money on that bet...

I guess defense doesn't win Superbowls...

 

[Warrior]

You can add the Giants game to the list, this and every other week, thanks to their unbelievably bad 0-6 start.

The Giants, like 90 percent of the league thanks to the salary cap ensuring "parity", are a mediocre team, that remarkably has a chance to win the incredibly weak NFC East at 8-8 or 9-7. The way the league works today, there are no great teams, a couple of very good teams (Seattle, Denver, the Patriots), a few good teams (Kansas City, Carolina, San Francisco, New Orleans), and the rest of the league are mediocre to bad. Because the rules do not permit any truly great unflawed teams anymore, the Super Bowl has been won by good/mediocre teams that got hot at the right time over the last several years (Giants 10-6, Giants 9-7, Ravens 10-6 to name a few). And don't even get me started on the rule changes.

I wish I could go back in time each Sunday to 1980 through 1990, and watch the golden age of the NFL, when they had the offense-defense balance right, and their were truly dominant great teams winning the super bowl each year, like the 49ers (who won 12-15 games each time they won their 4 titles), the 85 Bears (15-1), the 86 and 90 Giants (14-2 and 13-3). There were no 10-6 or 9-7 Champions in that decade, and you had a very good idea who was going to be playing in the NFC and AFC Championship game by week 10 each year.

Indeed, prior to the year 2000, the most teams to have a better record than the Super Bowl Champion in any given season was 3 in 1997, and in most seasons no more than 1 team had a better regular season record than the champion. Since the year 2000, with the salary cap and the rule changes ensuring a watered down product, 5 teams had a better record than the champ in 2001, 6 teams had a better record than the champ in 2007, 7 teams had a better record in 2010, 9 teams had a better record in 2011 and 8 teams had a better record in 2012. The team with the best regular season record has not won the title since 2003. Frankly, this is no way to run a league, and I see football joining boxing and horseracing as a sport that loses its popularity over the coming years.

What an awesome, awesome post; this one should be bronzed for future generations to be able to view.

 

[jazzeum]

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. I'm sure that there are some who wish for football between 1980 and 1990 and some the 10 years before that. Some also wish that we could go back to baseball of the 60s when Koufax, Gibson, Marechal and Drysdale ruled the diamond. However, nothing stays the same. Today's young fans may one day think that today's football or baseball was the golden age.

If there is one thing that is certain, it is change.

 

[lancer]

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. I'm sure that there are some who wish for football between 1980 and 1990 and some the 10 years before that. Some also wish that we could go back to baseball of the 60s when Koufax, Gibson, Marechal and Drysdale ruled the diamond. However, nothing stays the same. Today's young fans may one day think that today's football or baseball was the golden age.

If there is one thing that is certain, it is change.

Did I hear someone say '1960's baseball'? Count me in. And I'll take a little 1960's football thrown in with it.:wink2:^&grin^&grin^&grin -- Al

 

[Warrior]

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. I'm sure that there are some who wish for football between 1980 and 1990 and some the 10 years before that. Some also wish that we could go back to baseball of the 60s when Koufax, Gibson, Marechal and Drysdale ruled the diamond. However, nothing stays the same. Today's young fans may one day think that today's football or baseball was the golden age.

If there is one thing that is certain, it is change.

Change is one thing; ruining the game is another.

Read what Louis wrote, the parity and rule changes are ruining the game, pure and simple, end of story.

I had a nice chat with Tom Dubel today, he said parity had lead to mediocrity.

Talk about spot on.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Did I hear someone say '1960's baseball'? Count me in. And I'll take a little 1960's football thrown in with it.:wink2:^&grin^&grin^&grin -- Al

The M&M Boys, Sandy Kaufax, Juan Marichel, Bob Gibson . . . heck, even Tom Seaver and the '69 Mets . . .

The Ice Bowl, Vince Lombardi, Bart Star, Jim Brown, Johnny Unitas, ***le Sayers . . . heck, even Joe Namath's guarantee in Super Bowl III . . .

I'm in Al!

 

[lancer]

The post by Louis is very telling and, from my point of view, very true. I have no where near the interest in today's NFL that I had 15 years ago. With the watered down defensive game and the offenses out of control, it seems that watching a whole game is a waste of time. Simply tune in for the final 2 minutes to see who gets the ball last and, thus, the probable win. I'm sorry, but when 60 pass attempts and 400 yard passing games have become the norm, I no longer enjoy what used to be a game that involved strategy that included defense. Just stay within striking distance and get the ball last.:rolleyes2: -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Change is one thing; ruining the game is another.

Read what Louis wrote, the parity and rule changes are ruining the game, pure and simple, end of story.

I had a nice chat with Tom Dubel today, he said parity had lead to mediocrity.

Talk about spot on.

For better or for worse, nothing stays the same. Football is not what it was because it is there to make money. More money is made if everyone has a chance at the brass thing. Hence, parity. The NFL is image conscious. Hence, trying to make the game less violent. Less violence might mean less lawsuits. People like scoring. Hence, the rules change. It's all about the money. If people stop watching and stop spending money buying jerseys and paraphernalia, the NFL might change and go back to yesteryear. However, they're making more money than ever. It's all about the money. As the late great George Young used to say, when people say it's not about the money, it's about the money and the NFL is about the money.

Next.

 

[lancer]

The M&M Boys, Sandy Kaufax, Juan Marichel, Bob Gibson . . . heck, even Tom Seaver and the '69 Mets . . .

The Ice Bowl, Vince Lombardi, Bart Star, Jim Brown, Johnny Unitas, ***le Sayers . . . heck, even Joe Namath's guarantee in Super Bowl III . . .

I'm in Al!

It's the truth, ain't it? All the offensive fireworks over the last 15 years and I still would pick Unitas at Qb, Brown at Fb, Sayers at Hb, Lombardi at Head Coach, and I'd take on all comers.^&cool -- Al