Mikey wrote:Never heard of being "in the grasp" as having any relevance at all to grounding.
In the grasp is subjective and irrelevant. If a QB throws the ball away (no receiver in the area) while in the pocket to avoid a sack, it's grounding.
Exactly. If the QB is "in the grasp" the officials can call the play dead, similar to stopping forward progress. Not the same thing as intentional grounding.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:25 pm
by Goober McTuber
You’re looking for logic in a suckaholic post? Good luck with that.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:28 pm
by War Wagon
Mikey wrote:
If the QB is "in the grasp" the officials can call the play dead, similar to stopping forward progress. Not the same thing as intentional grounding.
But in this case, the same result.... a safety.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:02 pm
by Goober McTuber
War Wagon wrote:
Mikey wrote:
If the QB is "in the grasp" the officials can call the play dead, similar to stopping forward progress. Not the same thing as intentional grounding.
But in this case, the same result.... a safety.
Well yeah, Whitey, that's the way the rules are written.
Then there’s this:
It’s been more than four years now since the dark cloud of the “Spygate” scandal passed over the New England Patriots, but the Pats’ reemergence this season as a Super Bowl team has reignited the discussion. Former New York Giants wide receiver Amani Toomer said he’d put an asterisk on all three New England championships.
“I would,” he said today in an interview with Jim Rome. “I would, definitely. Without question.
“Tom Brady hasn’t won a Super Bowl since Spygate. If they don’t win another Super Bowl with Brady, with [coach Bill] Belichick, their three Super Bowls that they did win are going to be tainted. It’s going to be like Barry Bonds. You’re going to look at these three Super Bowls with an asterisk because of Spygate.
Belichick and the Patriots were disciplined by the league office when they were caught videotaping the New York Jets’ defensive coaches’ signals during a Sept. 9, 2007 game. It was later revealed that Belichick was guilty of taping many other teams, including the St. Louis Rams during preparations for Super Bowl XXXVI.
“If you know somebody’s defensive calls before you line up on the field, that’s as close to cheating as you can get in the NFL,” Toomer said. “If you know what their adjustments are, what their signals are, and you practice with those signals, that’s cheating. There’s no other way to slice it.”
Mikey wrote:Never heard of being "in the grasp" as having any relevance at all to grounding.
Being in the grasp is not part of the definition. My point is, even though there has to be some sort of definition for grounding, it is still a subjective call. Also, as a general rule, announcer dude is all over that call before the zebra eve has a chance to reach for his flag. If I recall, even the zebras had a little chat before they threw the flag.
One thing is for sure, I'll bet the next time it happens, tom will at least throw it in the same zipcode as one of his receivers.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:24 pm
by Goober McTuber
There was nothing subjective about that call, you gibbering fucktard. Between the tackles, (Whitey]eminent[/Whitey] pressure, ball thrown to an area devoid of receivers. What the fuck is your major malfunction?
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:26 pm
by smackaholic
Goober McTuber wrote:Giselle's prayer chain went unanswered.
I think we should have a prayer chain for some sort of decent halftime show next year. Cougarpalooza really was sad. She shakes that thing OK.....for someone half a century old.
I would like to see it actually be football related. Anyone remember the pass and kick kiddie competition they used to have in the 70s? I don't know if they ever did it during a superbowl, but, it was cool to watch.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:32 pm
by smackaholic
Goober McTuber wrote:There was nothing subjective about that call, you gibbering fucktard. Between the tackles, (Whitey]eminent[/Whitey] pressure, ball thrown to an area devoid of receivers. What the fuck is your major malfunction?
eminent and iminent pressure are subjective.
area devoid of receivers is subjective.
he was between the tackles, but there was all the room in the world to run to the right to avoid pressure. he chose instead to do what qbs do all the time and get away with it.....throw it away. he just did a very bad job of throwing it away. shouldn't have cost points in my rather subjective opinion.
btw, i'm not playing bitter pat fan. been a fan of both teams most of my life. would root for either one against anyone else in the league.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 pm
by jiminphilly
smackaholic wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:There was nothing subjective about that call, you gibbering fucktard. Between the tackles, (Whitey]eminent[/Whitey] pressure, ball thrown to an area devoid of receivers. What the fuck is your major malfunction?
eminent and iminent pressure are subjective.
area devoid of receivers is subjective.
he was between the tackles, but there was all the room in the world to run to the right to avoid pressure. he chose instead to do what qbs do all the time and get away with it.....throw it away. he just did a very bad
job of throwing it away. shouldn't have cost points in my rather subjective opinion.
More often than not, intentional grounding is called though you'll see more of a delay in that call than others because of referee positioning. That penalty was pretty clear. No receiver within at least 15 yards of the throw. Qb between the tackles and most importantly, in the end zone.
Brady should have known better.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:58 pm
by Goober McTuber
smackaholic wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:There was nothing subjective about that call, you gibbering fucktard. Between the tackles, (Whitey]eminent[/Whitey] pressure, ball thrown to an area devoid of receivers. What the fuck is your major malfunction?
eminent and iminent pressure are subjective.
area devoid of receivers is subjective.
he was between the tackles, but there was all the room in the world to run to the right to avoid pressure. he chose instead to do what qbs do all the time and get away with it.....throw it away. he just did a very bad job of throwing it away. shouldn't have cost points in my rather subjective opinion.
The rulebook clearly states that it’s worth two points. Thankfully your totally misguided opinion carries no weight.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:48 pm
by Moby Dick
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:21 am
by Dinsdale
Sudden Sam wrote:Yeah, yeah, I know there were actually players from other schools and states in the game.
It came down to who was getting the ring -- Patrick Chung, or Spencer Paysinger.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:33 am
by mvscal
smackaholic wrote: there was all the room in the world to run to the right to avoid pressure.
So what? That's like trying to argue that an offensive lineman shouldn't be flagged for holding because the play wasn't to his side.
It was pretty much a textbook example of intentional grounding. It was a rare brain fart from a player who is usually smarter than that.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:50 am
by Goober McTuber
I can't believe Ucant posted this video of his wife.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:08 am
by BSmack
Awesome find Goods.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:57 pm
by Bucmonkey
It's a shame they can't cherry pick half their schedule.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:15 pm
by Goober McTuber
It's Pete Rozelle's legacy. NFL parody.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:42 am
by mvscal
Sudden Sam wrote:
Bucmonkey wrote:It's a shame they can't cherry pick half their schedule.
Losing twice to the Redskins, though?
I know they were banged up bad half the season, but damn...
BFD
When has it ever been any different?
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:58 am
by Goober McTuber
mvscal wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:
Bucmonkey wrote:It's a shame they can't cherry pick half their schedule.
Losing twice to the Redskins, though?
I know they were banged up bad half the season, but damn...
BFD
When has it ever been any different?
Before Pete Rozelle came along?
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:51 am
by mvscal
You mean, before Pete Rozelle came along, injuries to key players had no impact on a team's fortunes? You sure about that?
I think you're full of shit. Prove me wrong.
Re: Super Bowl
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:42 pm
by Mikey
Goober McTuber wrote:
Before Pete Rozelle came along?
Oh yeah the good old days, pre-1960. It was a much better game back then.
