2024 Season | Thursday Opening Night Game | Gameday Chatter Thread | Ravens vs Chiefs | 9/5/2024

[p1_]

You are focusing on the wrong thing. If they hI agread a QB at QB instead of an athlete they would have at least tied the game. The 2 passes before that play were throws that should have easily been completed.

The first one where Collingsworth said "he didn't have time to set up" cracked me up. I mean after the initial push he had all the time in the world. Nobody was near him. The second one was unbelievable for a MVP with the game on the line.

I agree Jackson the MVP missed badly on those plays. I even remarked that it reminded me of Dak.
He redeemed himself on the final play.

It was a great play in a great ending, only to be denied. The drama the league and networks love.

I just struggle with 'breaking the plane" by a toe (or a hand). But rules are rules.

Im a nonconformist, what can I say?

 

[Simpleton]

Yeah you could say the refs were a little biased.

The way they were targeting the Ravens with these laughable illegal formation penalties was so ridiculous. It's one thing to come up with "points of emphasis" that likely get ignored after the first month of the season because everybody is laughing at how fucking stupid the NFL is, it's another to seemingly randomly decide to make it important after ignoring it for literally years while teams (Eagles) took such blatant advantage of it.

Then you have Chris Jones lined up with his helmet literally on the football all night and gets called for it once.

The officials are completely unable to properly manage the most basic thing in the game, the line of scrimmage and having the teams lined up in a proper/legal manner. The players have figured out that the league isn't going to call 20 penalties a game so they're going to push the envelope to get that extra half-step advantage.

Of course I doubt the league gives much of a shit because it's an entertainment business first and foremost.

 

[Texas Ace]

I just struggle with 'breaking the plane" by a toe (or a hand). But rules are rules.

What would be the point if there were no rules or guidelines? It would be extremely silly if referees just picked and chose when they wanted to let things slide, especially if it were in scenarios like last night.

Imagine how absurd it would be for the refs to let that TD stand all because "it sucks to lose like that, so let's let them have the TD".

Not only is that preposterous, but it hurts the integrity of the sport as well.

Inconsistent officiating is already a major problem in the NFL, so can you imagine how much worse it would be if they followed what your line of thinking is and made subjective calls due to whatever the situation was at that time?

I can't put into words how absurd that would be.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

What would be the point if there were no rules or guidelines? It would be extremely silly if referees just picked and chose when they wanted to let things slide, especially if it were in scenarios like last night.

Imagine how absurd it would be for the refs to let that TD stand all because "it sucks to lose like that, so let's let them have the TD".

Not only is that preposterous, but it hurts the integrity of the sport as well.

Inconsistent officiating is already a major problem in the NFL, so can you imagine how much worse it would be if they followed what your line of thinking is and made subjective calls due to whatever the situation was at that time?

I can't put into words how absurd that would be.

We all bitch about the hundreds of bad calls or missed calls. At least this one was called correctly. You have to draw the line somewhere and he went half an inch over it.

 

[Texas Ace]

We all bitch about the hundreds of bad calls or missed calls. At least this one was called correctly. You have to draw the line somewhere and he went half an inch over it.

But this is a call they HAD to make.

It wasn't subjective -- his toe was on the line which means he was out of bounds which means the catch doesn't count.

There was nothing there for them to get wrong, therefore they don't deserve any credit for getting it right.

They're SUPPOSED to follow the rules and invalidate that catch.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

But this is a call they HAD to make.

It wasn't subjective -- his toe was on the line which means he was out of bounds which means the catch doesn't count.

There was nothing there for them to get wrong, therefore they don't deserve any credit for getting it right.

They're SUPPOSED to follow the rules and invalidate that catch.

I agree.

How many times though have you seen them do a replay and still get a call wrong? This isn't a subjective thing at all. But they claim all the time they didn't get the right angle on the camera, the view wasn't good enough, the evidence wasn't conclusive enough.

 

[p1_]

But this is a call they HAD to make.

It wasn't subjective -- his toe was on the line which means he was out of bounds which means the catch doesn't count.

There was nothing there for them to get wrong, therefore they don't deserve any credit for getting it right.

They're SUPPOSED to follow the rules and invalidate that catch.

as I said, rules are rules.
However, as a fan, I’m still allowed to question the rule.

 

[NoDak]

I just struggle with 'breaking the plane" by a toe (or a hand).

That's retarded. Just how much of the toe or hand do you think should be allowed to "break the plane"? Half inch? One Inch? More?

And how do they decide if they are close to your arbitrary limit being breeched? Break out the ruler?


Pretty simple solution... If ANY part of your body touches the white line, you're out of bounds. That spot where the grass turns from green to white is pretty easy to see.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

That's retarded. Just how much of the toe or hand do you think should be allowed to "break the plane"? Half inch? One Inch? More?

And how do they decide if they are close to your arbitrary limit being breeched? Break out the ruler?


Pretty simple solution... If ANY part of your body touches the white line, you're out of bounds. That spot where the grass turns from green to white is pretty easy to see.

I agree, this shouldn't even be a discussion. You can't manipulate the rules on a second by second basis to make things more exciting.

 

[p1_]

That's retarded. Just how much of the toe or hand do you think should be allowed to "break the plane"? Half inch? One Inch? More?

And how do they decide if they are close to your arbitrary limit being breeched? Break out the ruler?


Pretty simple solution... If ANY part of your body touches the white line, you're out of bounds. That spot where the grass turns from green to white is pretty easy to see.

So what do you say about this rule: In college football, a player only needs to get one foot down in bounds to make a catch along the sideline, in the corner, or in the back of the end zone?

Wait, I know, it’s “retarded”.

 

[boozeman]

 

[Texas Ace]

So what do you say about this rule: In college football, a player only needs to get one foot down in bounds to make a catch along the sideline, in the corner, or in the back of the end zone?

Wait, I know, it’s “retarded”.

What are you saying? That you don't like that it's different from the NFL and therefore it's dumb?

Assuming this is what you're getting at I think you've chosen a poor example and here's why:

Personally, I like the NFL's possession rule better but this is a bad example because even though the rules for the NFL and college differ, they are the same where it matters most -- interpretation.

There's no gray area or any subjectivity to either rule whatsoever. They clearly and concisely explain exactly what a catch in the field of play requires to be considered valid. The NFL requires two feet inbounds and college football requires only one foot inbounds, but both are consistent in that whether it's one foot or two feet, the entirety of that foot or feet have to be in the field of play.

So what's the issue?

 

[Genghis Khan]

I just struggle with 'breaking the plane" by a toe (or a hand).

Why? It makes perfect sense to me and I never understand when people question it.

 

[NoDak]

So what do you say about this rule: In college football, a player only needs to get one foot down in bounds to make a catch along the sideline, in the corner, or in the back of the end zone?

Wait, I know, it’s “retarded”.

You're right. What you just wrote IS retarded. You're comparing the NFL with College football. Newsflash, dipshit. They have different rules. And not only in this area.

And in both games, get this now. Keep up if you can... If you touch the white stripe, you're out of bounds.

 

[Genghis Khan]

So what do you say about this rule: In college football, a player only needs to get one foot down in bounds to make a catch along the sideline, in the corner, or in the back of the end zone?

Wait, I know, it’s “retarded”.

That's not the same thing that you were complaining about though.

 

[p1_]

What are you saying? That you don't like that it's different from the NFL and therefore it's dumb?

Assuming this is what you're getting at I think you've chosen a poor example and here's why:

Personally, I like the NFL's possession rule better but this is a bad example because even though the rules for the NFL and college differ, they are the same where the matters most -- interpretation.

There's no gray area or any subjectivity to either rule whatsoever. They clearly and concisely explain exactly what a catch in the field of play requires to be considered valid. The NFL requires 2 ft inbounds in college football requires only one foot in bounds, both are consistent that whether it's one foot or two feet, the entirety of that foot or feet have to be in the field of play.

So what's the issue?

I’m just pointing out that there is support for a reception where the receiver’s foot crosses a boundary. Just because it’s NCAA doesn’t mean it’s bad or invalid.

 

[p1_]

You're right. What you just wrote IS retarded. You're comparing the NFL with College football. Newsflash, dipshit. They have different rules. And not only in this area.

And in both games, get this now. Keep up if you can... If you touch the white stripe, you're out of bounds.

One foot or toe over does not invalidate a reception.

 

[Texas Ace]

One foot or toe over does not invalidate a reception.

YES IT DOES... THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!

The rule states that the entirety of the body part that the NFL accepts as meeting the requirements for possession must be completely within the field of play at the time of the catch.

It doesn't matter if it's two feet, a knee, or an elbow.

The ENTIRETY of that part of the body must be inbounds with not a single inch or centimeter being out of the field of play.

Why are you struggling so much with this?

 

[p1_]

As was said last night, AFC home field advantage may come down to that toe.

 

[NoDak]

YES IT DOES... THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!

The rule states that the entirety of the body part that the NFL accepts as meeting the requirements for possession must be completely within the field of play at the time of the catch.

It doesn't matter if it's two feet, a knee, or an elbow.

The ENTIRETY of that part of the body must be inbounds with not a single inch or centimeter being out of the field of play.

Why are you struggling so much with this?

Just smile and nod, dude.