Super Bowl - Where do you stand (6 Viewers)

[WedgeRock]

That was the 1st sack of the game. If the QB is hit behind the line of scrimmage and he fumbles the ball, it is considered a sack, even if he doesn't go down. Look at the box score.

I've since learned that a strip is recorded as a sack.

I'll give Al Michaels a pass on that one... Now, about Matt Patricia being the new head coach of the Pistons..

 

[rowlin]

Collinsworth has been in broadcasting for, what, 20+ years now?

 

[SixSpeedFury]

I've since learned that a strip is recorded as a sack.

I'll give Al Michaels a pass on that one... Now, about Matt Patricia being the new head coach of the Pistons..

He's jumping to the NBA?!

 

[Lars]

I'm very happy for Foles. He had some great games the first time with the Eagles and I was surprised when he left. As a Cleveland Browns fan I had hoped he would land in Cleveland but Cleveland sees more value in players like the delicate RG3 and unstable Manzel.

 

[Big Jilm]

Pats, eat your humble pie and stfu.(most of you are gone anyway I suppose)

The New England Patriots have tied the record for MOST Superbowl losses. (y) :thumbsup:

Let's not forget the Donkeys with 5 losses as well.....

 

[Anthony Martino]

Pats, eat your humble pie and stfu.(most of you are gone anyway I suppose)

The New England Patriots have tied the record for MOST Superbowl losses. (y) :thumbsup:

*glares in Belichick*

 

[Anthony Martino]

Anyone catch the SNL skit they did on both teams? Ya Skeezas!

 

[justsomedude]

Let's not forget the Donkeys with 5 losses as well.....

***insert crying emoji here***

 

[krafticus]

Pats, eat your humble pie and stfu.(most of you are gone anyway I suppose)

The New England Patriots have tied the record for MOST Superbowl losses. (y) :thumbsup:

Let's not forget the Donkeys with 5 losses as well.....

whatever... there are Pats fans that don't reside in the NE area. haters gonna hate.
but again, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

[Big Jilm]

Yeah, .500 in the Superbowl for those guys. Amazing run, but .500.... Mostly post 9/11 which is "strange"

Donkeys are 3-5 = .375 -- Raiders are .600 at 3-2, just sayin!!

However, (sigh) the Steelers are still the NY Yankees of Football. I truly hope they never win another in my lifetime....

 

[Big Jilm]

whatever... there are Pats fans that don't reside in the NE area. haters gonna hate.
but again, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I hope you don't lose any sleep man. I just hope that flights of devils carry you to your final destination via horrific nightmares.

 

[krafticus]

I hope you don't lose any sleep man. I just hope that flights of devils carry you to your final destination via horrific nightmares.

If you feel better wishing me, or any human being, ill will, I feel sorry for you.
I don't understand that concept... because I cheer for a certain sports team (in which I have no vested interest), that makes me a lower person.

I used to Gloat... but I don't any more. not in sports, poker, or anything really. It really isn't worth it. Not that I don't have a thick skin, but it does nothing put paints you in a bad light.

To each their own I guess

 

[Big Jilm]

lol, it hurts doesn't it? just havin fun guy.....relax

 

[k9dr]

Yeah, .500 in the Superbowl for those guys. Amazing run, but .500.... Mostly post 9/11 which is "strange"

Donkeys are 3-5 = .375 -- Raiders are .600 at 3-2, just sayin!!

However, (sigh) the Steelers are still the NY Yankees of Football. I truly hope they never win another in my lifetime....

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are 1.000

 

[Big Jilm]

1-0!!!!! Amazing! Only because you had our coach....we got him back though.

Ravens are 2-0!

 

[crussader]

...the Steelers are still the NY Yankees of Football.

I like the sound of that.

 

[Ronoh]

I would have liked to see the ruling on the Ertz catch if he’d not had the ball long enough to be established as a runner... by the letter of the law I believe it should have been a catch even without becoming a runner. When he went to the ground the ball hit but he had it controlled while it was on the ground. It wasn’t until the ball was fully off the ground that it dislodged from his control. Once in the air he caught it and it never touched the ground.

To be clear, per the rules I believe it was not a catch until the point where he caught it after losing control but prior to that happening the ball was never dead as it was never out of bounds and while it did touch the ground it was controlled while in contact with the ground.

 

[timsta007]

I would have liked to see the ruling on the Ertz catch if he’d not had the ball long enough to be established as a runner... by the letter of the law I believe it should have been a catch even without becoming a runner. When he went to the ground the ball hit but he had it controlled while it was on the ground. It wasn’t until the ball was fully off the ground that it dislodged from his control. Once in the air he caught it and it never touched the ground.

To be clear, per the rules I believe it was not a catch until the point where he caught it after losing control but prior to that happening the ball was never dead as it was never out of bounds and while it did touch the ground it was controlled while in contact with the ground.

If it had been ruled this way in terms of controlling the ball the the ground but not fully established possession yet, it would have been incomplete. The ball contacted the ground and shifted (knocked loose) by the ground which would have resulted in an incompletion regardless of the fact that the then re-controlled the ball after it bounced. I do think they got the call right and it wasn't close. He took three full steps and as a runner, dove into the end zone.

 

[Ronoh]

If it had been ruled this way in terms of controlling the ball the the ground but not fully established possession yet, it would have been incomplete. The ball contacted the ground and shifted (knocked loose) by the ground which would have resulted in an incompletion regardless of the fact that the then re-controlled the ball after it bounced. I do think they got the call right and it wasn't close. He took three full steps and as a runner, dove into the end zone.

I disagree. The ball did not shift until it was entirely off the ground. The ground did not cause the shift, I believe his arm brace did (and not until it was no longer touching the ground).

 

[Ronoh]

To clarify, that wasn’t their call and is irrelevant as it was a TD as soon as it broke the plane because he was a runner. My opinion is the letter of the law pertaining to the rule if he’d not had the ball long enough to be considered a runner.

 

[justsomedude]

If it had been ruled this way in terms of controlling the ball the the ground but not fully established possession yet, it would have been incomplete. The ball contacted the ground and shifted (knocked loose) by the ground which would have resulted in an incompletion regardless of the fact that the then re-controlled the ball after it bounced. I do think they got the call right and it wasn't close. He took three full steps and as a runner, dove into the end zone.

I disagree. The ball did not shift until it was entirely off the ground. The ground did not cause the shift, I believe his arm brace did (and not until it was no longer touching the ground).

And this discussion is exactly why the NFL needs to change the rule. The entire conversation is ridiculous.

 

[Ronoh]

And this discussion is exactly why the NFL needs to change the rule. The entire conversation is ridiculous.

Which is exactly why I’d have liked to have seen the ruling had he not been established as a runner. The can’t fix the rule without defining better what does and does not constitute a catch and this is a good play to use as an example during those discussions.

I’m fairly sure he and I are in agreement on everything except at what point the ball shifted.

 

[timsta007]

Which is exactly why I’d have liked to have seen the ruling had he not been established as a runner. The can’t fix the rule without defining better what does and does not constitute a catch and this is a good play to use as an example during those discussions.

I’m fairly sure he and I are in agreement on everything except at what point the ball shifted.

Yes that's the way I see it too. I agree it's a proposterous situation to think about. We can argue how and when the physical play occured, and then also argue the definition of the rule is specific situations. Not exactly related to this question but the gif in this article illustrate the delicacies of the rule.

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/2/5/1...-rule-eagles-patriots-corey-clement-zach-ertz

In the last slow mo gif you can clearly see that on ertz' dive into the end zone the ball contacts the ground and is jarred loose prior to his forearm or elbow.

 

[justsomedude]

I think the best way to do this is eliminate video reviews of catches. If it passes the ‘eye test’ on the field, and 99% of the human race would call it a “catch,” then it’s a catch.

When you get into the minutiae of “when did it move,” or “did he survive the ground,” or “did he complete the process of the catch,” you are so far removed from the actions of the game that you start swirling down a rabbit hole of absurdity.

 

[Kyle]

View attachment 150346 View attachment 150347

 

[Kyle]

 

[justsomedude]

Spotted at the Eagles Super Bowl parade today (pic from @tallmaurice on twitter)...

 

[upNdown]

That's fucked up. Guy shows some affection for his kid and people want to make something out of it.

 

[justsomedude]

That's fucked up. Guy shows some affection for his kid and people want to make something out of it.

Oh come on... do we need a safe space from bad humor?

1. It's a Super Bowl parade.
2. Pats lost - all bets are off.
3. It's a joke.

 

[Kyle]

Oh come on... do we need a safe space from bad humor?

1. It's a Super Bowl parade.
2. Pats lost - all bets are off.
3. It's a joke.

Yeah Pats fans can dish it out but not take it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...r-eagles-practical-joke/ar-BBIQ5YX?li=BBnbfcL

Pretty embarrassing.