T1B

frodo_biguns wrote:

rozy wrote:Man I hate shit trolls.

His knee buckled dumbass. It's a hyperextension of the knee. Lucky, for sure. But not a broken leg bone.

this was intended for Shitpost_Bigbuns

I'm looking at it again on TiVo! Flexed right in the middle of the tibia.

peter dragon wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote:

rozy wrote:Man I hate shit trolls.

His knee buckled dumbass. It's a hyperextension of the knee. Lucky, for sure. But not a broken leg bone.

this was intended for Shitpost_Bigbuns

I'm looking at it again on TiVo! Flexed right in the middle of the tibia.

Im at work and havent seen the play.. but if its not broken and he starts next week will you refrain from posting for a month?

BBMarley wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote:

rozy wrote:Man I hate shit trolls.

His knee buckled dumbass. It's a hyperextension of the knee. Lucky, for sure. But not a broken leg bone.

this was intended for Shitpost_Bigbuns

I'm looking at it again on TiVo! Flexed right in the middle of the tibia.

Hence the reason his knee was wrapped and iced.. :roll:

Tibial Plateau Fractures

Clinical Details: Patients may present with a knee effusion, pain, and joint stiffness.

Although severe fractures often are repaired surgically, both operatively and nonoperatively treated fractures are at risk for posttraumatic osteoarthritis as a result of ligamentous injuries with resultant instability (and possibly varus or valgus deformity). The risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis is greatest in younger patients.

Surgical intervention depends on numerous factors including the overall condition of the patient and associated local or regional injuries. From an orthopedic standpoint, the degree of articular depression and degree of diastasis of the fractured parts are the most crucial elements to be considered when making a decision regarding surgical intervention. As a general rule, 4-5 mm of articular depression and 3-4 mm of diastasis are considered indicators for surgical management.

Preferred Examination: The preferred examination consists of radiographs in multiple obliquities of the knee. Typically, these include anteroposterior (AP), cross-table lateral, patellar (sunrise), and, possibly, oblique views. Cross-table lateral and AP may be the only views possible in the trauma suite. In this setting, the cross-table lateral radiograph may be the most important to detect occult fractures. The presence of these subtle fractures may be inferred by the presence of a lipohemarthrosis on the cross-table lateral radiograph, indicating disruption of an articular surface, most often the tibia. Images 3-6 demonstrate the radiographic, CT, and MRI appearance of lipohemarthrosis.

CT is used by most orthopedists to further characterize fractures of the tibial plateau and assess the depression of the tibia and the degree of diastasis (splitting) of the fractured parts to plan for surgical intervention. Generally, slice thickness should be minimized (1 mm is ideal) and high milliamperage-second (mAs) technique used.

MRI may be used as well for this determination but often is not readily available. MRI is excellent for depicting ligamentous and meniscal injuries.

Arteriography (and possibly MR angiography) may be used if popliteal artery injury is suspected.

frodo_biguns wrote:

BBMarley wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote: I'm looking at it again on TiVo! Flexed right in the middle of the tibia.

Hence the reason his knee was wrapped and iced.. :roll:

First attempt is to stop Edema after mobilized.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Tibial Plateau Fractures

Clinical Details: Patients may present with a knee effusion, pain, and joint stiffness.

Although severe fractures often are repaired surgically, both operatively and nonoperatively treated fractures are at risk for posttraumatic osteoarthritis as a result of ligamentous injuries with resultant instability (and possibly varus or valgus deformity). The risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis is greatest in younger patients.

Surgical intervention depends on numerous factors including the overall condition of the patient and associated local or regional injuries. From an orthopedic standpoint, the degree of articular depression and degree of diastasis of the fractured parts are the most crucial elements to be considered when making a decision regarding surgical intervention. As a general rule, 4-5 mm of articular depression and 3-4 mm of diastasis are considered indicators for surgical management.

Preferred Examination: The preferred examination consists of radiographs in multiple obliquities of the knee. Typically, these include anteroposterior (AP), cross-table lateral, patellar (sunrise), and, possibly, oblique views. Cross-table lateral and AP may be the only views possible in the trauma suite. In this setting, the cross-table lateral radiograph may be the most important to detect occult fractures. The presence of these subtle fractures may be inferred by the presence of a lipohemarthrosis on the cross-table lateral radiograph, indicating disruption of an articular surface, most often the tibia. Images 3-6 demonstrate the radiographic, CT, and MRI appearance of lipohemarthrosis.

CT is used by most orthopedists to further characterize fractures of the tibial plateau and assess the depression of the tibia and the degree of diastasis (splitting) of the fractured parts to plan for surgical intervention. Generally, slice thickness should be minimized (1 mm is ideal) and high milliamperage-second (mAs) technique used.

MRI may be used as well for this determination but often is not readily available. MRI is excellent for depicting ligamentous and meniscal injuries.

Arteriography (and possibly MR angiography) may be used if popliteal artery injury is suspected.

http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic698.htm

Mikey wrote:Right now these are the two best teams in the NFL.

BBMarley wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote:

BBMarley wrote: Hence the reason his knee was wrapped and iced.. :roll:

First attempt is to stop Edema after mobilized.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Tibial Plateau Fractures

Clinical Details: Patients may present with a knee effusion, pain, and joint stiffness.

Although severe fractures often are repaired surgically, both operatively and nonoperatively treated fractures are at risk for posttraumatic osteoarthritis as a result of ligamentous injuries with resultant instability (and possibly varus or valgus deformity). The risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis is greatest in younger patients.

Surgical intervention depends on numerous factors including the overall condition of the patient and associated local or regional injuries. From an orthopedic standpoint, the degree of articular depression and degree of diastasis of the fractured parts are the most crucial elements to be considered when making a decision regarding surgical intervention. As a general rule, 4-5 mm of articular depression and 3-4 mm of diastasis are considered indicators for surgical management.

Preferred Examination: The preferred examination consists of radiographs in multiple obliquities of the knee. Typically, these include anteroposterior (AP), cross-table lateral, patellar (sunrise), and, possibly, oblique views. Cross-table lateral and AP may be the only views possible in the trauma suite. In this setting, the cross-table lateral radiograph may be the most important to detect occult fractures. The presence of these subtle fractures may be inferred by the presence of a lipohemarthrosis on the cross-table lateral radiograph, indicating disruption of an articular surface, most often the tibia. Images 3-6 demonstrate the radiographic, CT, and MRI appearance of lipohemarthrosis.

CT is used by most orthopedists to further characterize fractures of the tibial plateau and assess the depression of the tibia and the degree of diastasis (splitting) of the fractured parts to plan for surgical intervention. Generally, slice thickness should be minimized (1 mm is ideal) and high milliamperage-second (mAs) technique used.

MRI may be used as well for this determination but often is not readily available. MRI is excellent for depicting ligamentous and meniscal injuries.

Arteriography (and possibly MR angiography) may be used if popliteal artery injury is suspected.

http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic698.htm

But don't ya think they would have taken him into the locker room to get looking at him right away?

PSUFAN wrote:Props to LT, he's demonic. I'm surprised by the Steeler win, to be honest.

frodo_biguns wrote:

BBMarley wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote: First attempt is to stop Edema after mobilized.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.
http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic698.htm

But don't ya think they would have taken him into the locker room to get looking at him right away?

Nope! A broken lower leg is hard to diagnose unless it's a compound fracture or unless you get an x-ray. I waited a full day before I went to the doctor when I broke mine.

BSmack wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Props to LT, he's demonic. I'm surprised by the Steeler win, to be honest.

A guy who has followed Joe Pa is surprised that a team can stop a stud RB?

The Steelers showed why Trev needs to end her Drew worship and get back to backing some fine chocolate chip cookies. He can't carry that team. If the Steelers don't get hosed by that BS muffed punt call, this could have been a blowout. That call and some stupid penalties on the drive after kept the Bolts in the game.

BBMarley wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote:

BBMarley wrote: But don't ya think they would have taken him into the locker room to get looking at him right away?

Nope! A broken lower leg is hard to diagnose unless it's a compound fracture or unless you get an x-ray. I waited a full day before I went to the doctor when I broke mine.

Obviously- its not that hard to diagnoise- you did it with nothing but a Tivo!

Mikey wrote:Pull your head out of your ass. Even Cowher in the post game interview said it was the correct call. You might not like the rule but it was the right call. There were some stupid penalties against the Chargers too.

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:Pull your head out of your ass. Even Cowher in the post game interview said it was the correct call. You might not like the rule but it was the right call. There were some stupid penalties against the Chargers too.

What's he supposed to do? Speak his mind and get hit with a 100k fine? Besides, he WON. Why take a fine after you just won a game? The ball hit Sproles and then bounced off him and hit the Steelers player. It was only at that moment that the Steelers player attempted to gain possesion of the ball. How that can turn into "Interfering with a fair catch" I'll leave to you and the rest of your homies in Fantasyland.

Mikey wrote:It's quite simple. When a player signals a fair catch you don't touch him or the ball unless and until the ball hits the ground. No exception. The ball hit the Steelers' player at the same time he was hitting Sproles, because he was too close. It would be different if he hadn't called a fair catch.

Know the rule. Be the rule.

Otherwise, how do you know exactly when it's okay, hmmm? How much is he allowed to bobble the ball before he becomes fair game? Please. Let's have a definition of exactly how the play should be called. Not just "well, when he can't catch it anymore". Where is the dividing line? How else to you define it so that there's no question?

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:It's quite simple. When a player signals a fair catch you don't touch him or the ball unless and until the ball hits the ground. No exception. The ball hit the Steelers' player at the same time he was hitting Sproles, because he was too close. It would be different if he hadn't called a fair catch.

Know the rule. Be the rule.

No, the ball hit the Steelers player after the ball hit Sproles and BEFORE the Steelers player made contact with Sproles.

You know, they have this thing called instant replay. That would have been a good time to use it. Oh wait, even if they had, they would have probably fucked it up like they did on Ward's TD.

Otherwise, how do you know exactly when it's okay, hmmm? How much is he allowed to bobble the ball before he becomes fair game? Please. Let's have a definition of exactly how the play should be called. Not just "well, when he can't catch it anymore". Where is the dividing line? How else to you define it so that there's no question?

How about when the wuss who's failing to catch the ball completely muffs the damn thing and said ball is impossible for him to catch unless he turns into Stretch Armstrong?

Mikey wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:It's quite simple. When a player signals a fair catch you don't touch him or the ball unless and until the ball hits the ground. No exception. The ball hit the Steelers' player at the same time he was hitting Sproles, because he was too close. It would be different if he hadn't called a fair catch.

Know the rule. Be the rule.

No, the ball hit the Steelers player after the ball hit Sproles and BEFORE the Steelers player made contact with Sproles.

You know, they have this thing called instant replay. That would have been a good time to use it. Oh wait, even if they had, they would have probably fucked it up like they did on Ward's TD.

Otherwise, how do you know exactly when it's okay, hmmm? How much is he allowed to bobble the ball before he becomes fair game? Please. Let's have a definition of exactly how the play should be called. Not just "well, when he can't catch it anymore". Where is the dividing line? How else to you define it so that there's no question?

How about when the wuss who's failing to catch the ball completely muffs the damn thing and said ball is impossible for him to catch unless he turns into Stretch Armstrong?

I see. So the working definition is "when he completely muffs the damn thing". :roll:

So, is that when the ball is, say 3 inches off the receiver's hands? 1 1/2? 12? How do you know when it's "impossible to catch"? Do you just ask some tunnel visioned Steeler fan? Don't you need a specific rule so that a player or official can know when it's OK and when it isn't.

Get over it already. Your team won. You really don't need to convince anybody that it would have been a blowout if not for this "obvious" blown call.

:roll: x many

How do you know when it's "impossible to catch"?

PSUFAN wrote:

How do you know when it's "impossible to catch"?

Steeler fan or no, Sprouls had no chance to catch that ball after muffing it. It was flying out of his grasp. The defender knocked the ball back into his general area and then caught it.

The correct call was made, but they need to look at that play and change the rule. If the ball bounces off of the returner and a defender catches it, it should be a fucking turnover.

PSUFAN wrote:Steeler fan or no, Sprouls had no chance to catch that ball after muffing it. It was flying out of his grasp. The defender knocked the ball back into his general area and then caught it.

The correct call was made, but they need to look at that play and change the rule. If the ball bounces off of the returner and a defender catches it, it should be a fucking turnover.

BSmack wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Props to LT, he's demonic. I'm surprised by the Steeler win, to be honest.

A guy who has followed Joe Pa is surprised that a team can stop a stud RB?

The Steelers showed why Trev needs to end her Drew worship and get back to backing some fine chocolate chip cookies. He can't carry that team. If the Steelers don't get hosed by that BS muffed punt call, this could have been a blowout. That call and some stupid penalties on the drive after kept the Bolts in the game.

ChargerMike wrote: The fact is he was covered like a blanket...

ChargerMike wrote:You may have had better seats than I Bri. but bagging on Brees' is idiotic. He had one under thrown pass, which by the way is a play that most teams in the league use. Parker caught an identical pass last week, this time he couldn't come back because the defender was in the way. Yes, if the ball was thrown long enough it might have been a T.D. The fact is he was covered like a blanket, and in my opinion it was Brees decision to throw it short. Who knows.

Crying about the refs' call...you gotta be kidding. Doesn't matter if Sproles would not have caught the muff, the rule says he has to have the opportunity..which he didn't. Horsebleep rule? YES. Correct call? YES

The difference in the game to me was Drayton Florence...^&(&(*%%^#* everyone around me was calling for his head. Sucker can't cover, and gets flagged every other freekin play. Again, our secondary couldn't find Hines Ward ( who is freekin nails ) hell they couldn't even find Antwaan Randle El or Heath Miller for that matter.

All in all it was a heavyweight battle and the better team won this trip. Can someone tell me why we let Rodney Harrison go?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:One thing I would like to see is a link that shows that rule.

From the 1999 edition (the rule obviously hasn't changed):

Rule Ten: Fair Catch

Article 4 Supplemental Notes

(2) After a valid fair catch signal, the opportunity to make a fair catch does not end when the kick is muffed. The player who signaled fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the ball before it hits the ground without being interfered with by the members of the the kicking team.

(3) An intentional muff forward prior to a catch in order to gain ground is an illegal bat (see 12-1-6)

KUTTER wrote:RACK it. Bri?

Mikey wrote:Heh. BSmack with an argument on what constitutes "reasonable" in 3...2...1...

(I'm sure his definition should take precedence over the official on the scene)

Edit...never mind...you think he did it intentionally?

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:Heh. BSmack with an argument on what constitutes "reasonable" in 3...2...1...

(I'm sure his definition should take precedence over the official on the scene)

Edit...never mind...you think he did it intentionally?

Was that muff forward? Yes it was.

Then it becomes a judgement call as to wether or not he did so intentionaly.

Never mind that a reasonable opportunity to catch was given.

Sirfindafold wrote:

ChargerMike wrote: The fact is he was covered like a blanket...

Had at least a step on the dude.

With a FC he should be allowed more space. In this case he was much too close.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

OK: I see the cite. Looked to me like the ball was muffed forward. Why did they ignore that part of the rule?

Intentional muff forward in order to gain ground.. Why did you ignore that part of the rule?

Did the Steeler player collide with the return man before the ball hit the ground?

Yes or no.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:The ball collided with the Steelers player before contact was made.

Did he have control or possesion of the ball? No, he didn't...making your claim irrelevant.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:He was given a reasonable opportunity to make the catch.

Says who?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:He was given a reasonable opportunity to make the catch.

Says who?

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:He was given a reasonable opportunity to make the catch.

Says who?

The only person whose opinion matters, obviously.