2012-2013 NFL Thread

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Unanimously being called a troll by Bears fans who disagree with my viewpoint because it wouldn't be in favor of the Bears. Yep. I don't see the problem there.

 

And my bad, I forgot I was arguing with an Admin. I realize it's not tolerated to disagree with you, for fear of being banned or "put on a break." Sometimes I forget the class levels of hierarchy here and who I can and cannot disagree with.

 

I'm a Chiefs fan.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The Spaeth play was a matter of whether his second foot came down in the end zone prior to his knee being down out of bounds...there was one angle which very clearly showed his second foot came down in the end zone before the knee hit down out of bounds. The question was not whether the touchdown should count regardless of whether the second foot came down first, as you seemed to imply in the Dez Bryant catch, where it was entirely clear and obvious that his right hand came down out of bounds first. The two catches were not at all similar except for the fact that they both occurred in or around the end zone.

 

I don't have a clue why you would bring up the Dez Bryant situation as a result of seeing the Spaeth play, if not just for the sake of trolling, which about six other people seem to think you were.

 

One was a clear touchdown, one was clearly not a touchdown, both were ruled upon conclusively by the referees without controversy.

 

It's not even worth trying. It's fairly obvious the NFL was just out to get the Cowboys during that game.

[cabiness42]

I'm a Chiefs fan.

 

Why would you admit that?

[chw42]

The Apple stuff I post could easily be considered trolling, I don't deny that.

 

But saying the Spaeth TD should not have been ruled one based off a similar call earlier in the year is NOT trolling. This is the NFL thread, not the Bears thread. Just because it's dominated by mostly Bears fans doesn't mean I have to see things in favor of the Bears. I'm not even a Packers and Lions or Vikings fan, I have no reason to try and disagree with Bears fans either.

 

NOT trolling.

 

The Spaeth TD was clearly a touchdown. His foot was clearly in bounds before his knee was out. You can't say that about the Bryant play. I know what you're getting at. That being in bounds by so little or being out of bounds by so little and having two different results is somewhat unfair. But those are the rules and if we're gonna bend the rules for things that are borderline, then why the hell do we even have rules?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Why would you admit that?

 

LOL.

 

It is what it is. Spending a few years growing up in Germany with a father who doesn't watch sports leads to crazy rooting interests. I'm not alone, there's 2 or 3 more here

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The Spaeth play was a matter of whether his second foot came down in the end zone prior to his knee being down out of bounds...there was one angle which very clearly showed his second foot came down in the end zone before the knee hit down out of bounds. The question was not whether the touchdown should count regardless of whether the second foot came down first, as you seemed to imply in the Dez Bryant catch, where it was entirely clear and obvious that his right hand came down out of bounds first. The two catches were not at all similar except for the fact that they both occurred in or around the end zone.

 

I don't have a clue why you would bring up the Dez Bryant situation as a result of seeing the Spaeth play, if not just for the sake of trolling, which about six other people seem to think you were.

 

One was a clear touchdown, one was clearly not a touchdown, both were ruled upon conclusively by the referees without controversy.

 

Both had instances where the player came down in bounds, a split second before landing out of bounds. Spaeth had his foot come down a couple milliseconds before his knee did. Bryant had the side of his hand come down a millisecond before his pinky finger did. Both were very similar plays. I saw it one, you guys saw it the other way. If I called people out for trolling everytime they said Notre Dame shouldn't be in the National Championship game, or they don't deserve it, or whatever, I could rack up a list too.

 

It's clear that you an whoever else that are accusing me of disagreeing, I mean trolling, do no spend time on any other forums because then you would see what actual trolling is. Disagreeing with Bears fans is NOT trolling, sorry.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

GMAB, if I actually threatened and acted like that, you would have been suspended a long time ago for the pet thread. Take your big brother bulls*** elsewhere

 

Ummm, YOU are the one who just threatened for me to end the conversation or else I would "take a break". How is that not threatening me?

[Kyyle23]

Ummm, YOU are the one who just threatened for me to end the conversation or else I would "take a break". How is that not threatening me?

 

Do i do that all the time? Or do i do it when someone is starting to display a pattern of trolling threads?

[iamshack]

The Spaeth TD was clearly a touchdown. His foot was clearly in bounds before his knee was out. You can't say that about the Bryant play. I know what you're getting at. That being in bounds by so little or being out of bounds by so little and having two different results is somewhat unfair. But those are the rules and if we're gonna bend the rules for things that are borderline, then why the hell do we even have rules?

And I tried to sympathize with this when the Bryant catch occurred.

 

However, the Spaeth play was not similar in any way to the Bryant catch.

 

The only reason he made the comment when he did was to try and get back at people for mocking his silly Cowboys' commentary.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Both had instances where the player came down in bounds, a split second before landing out of bounds. Spaeth had his foot come down a couple milliseconds before his knee did. Bryant had the side of his hand come down a millisecond before his pinky finger did. Both were very similar plays. I saw it one, you guys saw it the other way. If I called people out for trolling everytime they said Notre Dame shouldn't be in the National Championship game, or they don't deserve it, or whatever, I could rack up a list too.

 

It's clear that you an whoever else that are accusing me of disagreeing, I mean trolling, do no spend time on any other forums because then you would see what actual trolling is. Disagreeing with Bears fans is NOT trolling, sorry.

 

Why do you keep saying this like it's a fact when it clearly was not. Bryant's hand (FINGER!) hit out of bounds PRIOR and it was not even debatable.

[StrangeSox]

One hand isn't enough to be ruled inbounds though, right? So it doesn't matter where Bryant's hand hit first, just that part of his hand hit oob before his butt landed inbounds.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

It's not even worth trying. It's fairly obvious the NFL was just out to get the Cowboys during that game.

 

Nope, never said that at all. Not even once. Terrible reach.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The Spaeth TD was clearly a touchdown. His foot was clearly in bounds before his knee was out. You can't say that about the Bryant play. I know what you're getting at. That being in bounds by so little or being out of bounds by so little and having two different results is somewhat unfair. But those are the rules and if we're gonna bend the rules for things that are borderline, then why the hell do we even have rules?

 

No, it's the fact that Dez's hand actually hit IN BOUNDS first, then his pinky landed out of bounds a millisecond later. In both instances, the player came down in bounds, then another body part landed out of bounds almost simultaneously. Dez's was closer than Spaeths, but what the correct time frame to say "he was in bounds long enough before he was out of bounds"? That's the gray area there. His pinky was not the first thing that landed.

 

And the issue or not about the agreement of that play right now, it's that I am somehow just trolling by saying Speath was out of bounds, instead of simply starting a conversation. As if my comment about Spaeth somehow had malicious intent just to piss people off, because that's what trolling is, and that's what I am being "unanimously" accused of, regardless of our beliefs on the Dez vs. Spaeth plays.

[iamshack]

Both had instances where the player came down in bounds, a split second before landing out of bounds. Spaeth had his foot come down a couple milliseconds before his knee did. Bryant had the side of his hand come down a millisecond before his pinky finger did. Both were very similar plays. I saw it one, you guys saw it the other way. If I called people out for trolling everytime they said Notre Dame shouldn't be in the National Championship game, or they don't deserve it, or whatever, I could rack up a list too.

 

It's clear that you an whoever else that are accusing me of disagreeing, I mean trolling, do no spend time on any other forums because then you would see what actual trolling is. Disagreeing with Bears fans is NOT trolling, sorry.

The way the current rules are interpreted is that if any part of your hand or foot hits down on the ground immediately after you make the catch, your entire hand or foot (that hits the ground) needs to be in bounds. This is not up for debate. Every week you see a player get part of his second foot in bounds but the rest of it comes down out of bounds and that does not count as the second foot being in bounds. Basically, the entire appendage that touches the ground must be in bounds.

 

This is not at all a controversial rule or interpretation of the rule. Not sure why you seem to be so upset about it.

Edited November 26, 2012 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

No, it's the fact that Dez's hand actually hit IN BOUNDS first, then his pinky landed out of bounds a millisecond later. In both instances, the player came down in bounds, then another body part landed out of bounds almost simultaneously. Dez's was closer than Spaeths, but what the correct time frame to say "he was in bounds long enough before he was out of bounds"? That's the gray area there. His pinky was not the first thing that landed.

 

And the issue or not about the agreement of that play right now, it's that I am somehow just trolling by saying Speath was out of bounds, instead of simply starting a conversation. As if my comment about Spaeth somehow had malicious intent just to piss people off, because that's what trolling is, and that's what I am being "unanimously" accused of, regardless of our beliefs on the Dez vs. Spaeth plays.

 

I could be wrong here, but I don't think "one hand" counts as being in-bounds. So it doesn't matter that his hand landed in-bounds first and then his pinky hit. When his pinky hit, he hadn't yet completed the catch in-bounds so it was incomplete.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Do i do that all the time? Or do i do it when someone is starting to display a pattern of trolling threads?

 

I'M NOT f***ING TROLLING.

 

Jesus, that is the thing. I get threatened to stop trolling when I am not even trolling, but then can't argue that I am not trolling? Again, disagreeing with a call that went for the Bears is NOT TROLLING. You are an Admin and you can't even decipher between a disagreeing opinion and trolling?

[Kyyle23]

I'M NOT f***ING TROLLING.

 

Jesus, that is the thing. I get threatened to stop trolling when I am not even trolling, but then can't argue that I am not trolling? Again, disagreeing with a call that went for the Bears is NOT TROLLING. You are an Admin and you can't even decipher between a disagreeing opinion and trolling?

 

We all know pretty well what it is Joe.

[iamshack]

I'M NOT f***ING TROLLING.

 

Jesus, that is the thing. I get threatened to stop trolling when I am not even trolling, but then can't argue that I am not trolling? Again, disagreeing with a call that went for the Bears is NOT TROLLING. You are an Admin and you can't even decipher between a disagreeing opinion and trolling?

You came into the thread and referred to a call without even mentioning the name of the player or the team. It is clear you knew who your target was and what your intention was. The play was not being discussed yet by Bears fans, and yet you commented on it in the way that you did (which implies that you did it almost immediately after it happened) merely for the sake of starting some sort of argument about it. You certainly did not say "Ok fellas, how is that different then the Bryant play?" Or "Guys, don't you think that is the same sort of thing that happened with Bryant?"

 

No, you clearly went after some folks you were angry at because they razzed you about your silly comments from the Cowboys game.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The way the current rules are interpreted is that if any part of your hand or foot hits down on the ground immediately after you make the catch, your entire hand or foot (that hits the ground) needs to be in bounds. This is not up for debate. Every week you see a player get part of his second foot in bounds but the rest of it comes down out of bounds and that does not count as the second foot being in bounds. Basically, the entire appendage that touches the ground must be in bounds.

 

This is not at all a controversial rule or interpretation of the rule. Not sure why you seem to be so upset about it.

 

Then that's all that had to be said. Not some bulls*** about trolling. I did not know it was interpreted that your ENTIRE appendage must come down in bounds, regardless of whether parts of it landed at different times. I have seen a play in which a receiver caught a ball on the tips of his toes, and then his heel landed on the line out of bounds when he completely came to rest and it was ruled a catch because he toes were in bounds first. It must have been the wrong call and I was referencing that call when thinking about the Bryant catch because it was a similar instance in which part of his hand was down before all of it. If what you say is how it's interpreted, then fine, that makes sense considering w/ Spaeth it occurred on different parts of his body, meaning the same rule doesn't apply.

 

Iamshack said that needed to be said. Now it's done.

Edited November 26, 2012 by JoeCoolMan24

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I could be wrong here, but I don't think "one hand" counts as being in-bounds. So it doesn't matter that his hand landed in-bounds first and then his pinky hit. When his pinky hit, he hadn't yet completed the catch in-bounds so it was incomplete.

 

Iamshack says an entire appendage counts in whether someone is in bounds or not, so in that case, it makes sense that he was ruled out of bounds because although 90% of his hand was in bounds FIRST, the last 10% eventually landed out of bounds, nullifying the catch. But I believe a hand down does count as being "in bounds", so long as all of the hand is in.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

We all know pretty well what it is Joe.

 

And what is it, Kyle?

[2nd_city_saint787]

The runner is considered down when either a: His forward progress stops or b: any part of his body other than his foot or hand touches the ground AND he is touched by a player of an opposing team.

 

Bryants hand touched down out of bounds before any other part of his body, thus he was out of bounds...Simple as that.

 

[iamshack]

Then that's all that had to be said. Not some bulls*** about trolling. I did not know it was interpreted that your ENTIRE appendage must come down in bounds, regardless of whether parts of it landed at different times. I have seen a play in which a receiver caught a ball on the tips of his toes, and then his heel landed on the line out of bounds when he completely came to rest and it was ruled a catch because he toes were in bounds first. It must have been the wrong call and I was referencing that call when thinking about the Bryant catch because it was a similar instance in which part of his hand was down before all of it. If what you say is how it's interpreted, then fine, that makes sense considering w/ Spaeth it occurred on different parts of his body, meaning the same rule doesn't apply.

 

Iamshack said that needed to be said. Now it's done.

They will give you part of your foot or hand if that is the only part that touches the ground (at that moment). But you see receivers in the back of the end zone or against the sideline oftentimes get their heel in bounds first but then the front of their foot comes down out of bounds as they complete their step and that does not count as having a foot in bounds.

[StrangeSox]

Iamshack says an entire appendage counts in whether someone is in bounds or not, so in that case, it makes sense that he was ruled out of bounds because although 90% of his hand was in bounds FIRST, the last 10% eventually landed out of bounds, nullifying the catch. But I believe a hand down does count as being "in bounds", so long as all of the hand is in.

 

But would it count for a completion e.g. someone lands with their hand in-bounds but then their butt entirely out-of-bounds.

[StrangeSox]

The runner is considered down when either a: His forward progress stops or b: any part of his body other than his foot or hand touches the ground AND he is touched by a player of an opposing team.

 

Bryants hand touched down out of bounds before any other part of his body, thus he was out of bounds...Simple as that.

that's a different rule than completions, otherwise foot-dragging wouldn't count.