Does the "controversial call" always favor the outcome better for the NFL?

[Stillriledup]

Sinister or not, the Lion Cowboy controversy went to favor the team who would provide the much better ratings, so i'll ask, controversial calls, lets just stick with playoffs and super bowls, who gets the benefit of these seemingly random calls?

Some that stick out in my memory all seemed to go in favor of the team that would provide more revenue.

Cowboys over Detroit.

Tuck rule, the hated Raiders with Al Davis being on the short end there.

Steelers in SB over the no-name Seahawks was very controversial, might have been even more than 1 "bad call" that went the Steelers way

And of course, the call that went against the No Name Bucs vs the darling Rams in the 1999 championship game. The "greatest show on Turf" got the call over a team with a bunch of guys nobody had ever heard of.

Coincidence i'm sure.

[MutuelClerk]

Immaculate DEception.

[cj]

Phantom defensive holding call against the Giants in Ravens first Super Bowl win, totally turned the game. Giants actually ran back a pick for a TD and it would have been 7-7.

[Stillriledup]

Phantom defensive holding call against the Giants in Ravens first Super Bowl win, totally turned the game. Giants actually ran back a pick for a TD and it would have been 7-7.

I don't even remember this as a "Famous" mistake. I dont remember it at all. I was just thinking about game turning calls that are down in NFL "lore" that everyone knows about. Nobody hasn't heard of the Tuck rule game, and there's a LOT of discussion still to this day about the Seahawks in the SB vs the Steelers.

One "phantom" play that went uncalled was the non holding/blocking in the back, clipping and all the fouls that happened during James Harrison's runback vs the Cardinals....that should have come back, Pitt probably loses that SB if they dont get that free TD, there must have been 3 or 4 fouls on that runback and none got called.

[Stillriledup]

Immaculate DEception.

Tell me what you think about that play, was there a video that showed the ball hit the ground? What's your take.

[tucker6]

The Steeler SB doesn't fit your theory as it happened IN the SB, and therefore ratings were already assured. That was probably an instance of personal gain on the refs part and not a global conspiracy. :D

A game that comes to mind is the Giants-49ers from about 10-15 years ago where the refs blew the call at the end of the game. 49ers won.

I've seen replays of the Immaculate Reception from various angles, including discussion from physics professors. Ball hit Tatum on the shoulder, which ricocheted to Franco who picked it up at his shoestrings. Incredibly lucky play is all.

[OTM Al]

Phantom defensive holding call against the Giants in Ravens first Super Bowl win, totally turned the game. Giants actually ran back a pick for a TD and it would have been 7-7.
Got no problem with that game as I hit both halftime and final on the board I played. Quite a good night.

I don't think ratings are much affected by who's in the NFL playoff games. Everyone watches no matter what, unlike basketball and baseball

[Clocker]

I don't think ratings are much affected by who's in the NFL playoff games. Everyone watches no matter what, unlike basketball and baseball

Ditto. The game is at 1PM on Sunday, the big sports event at the time with no competition. If Detroit was playing, how many people in the Dallas market would not watch because of that? They'd watch hoping to see the Lions get killed. I can't see how the outcome has any effect on TV ratings.

[MutuelClerk]

Tell me what you think about that play, was there a video that showed the ball hit the ground? What's your take.

There's a video showing Franco Harris picking up the ball. You don't know if it's one hopped or he actually caught it. The way I remember Franco Harris is he wasn't much of a pass catcher on perfect dry days let alone a ball spiked like a volleyball on a cold wintery day. Also the ball may have went off two offensive players in a row without a defensive player touching it in between. Between the immaculate deception and the tuck rule the Raiders were involved in starting two football dynasties. Teams I root against still. Go Ravens!!!

[Valuist]

There's a video showing Franco Harris picking up the ball. You don't know if it's one hopped or he actually caught it. The way I remember Franco Harris is he wasn't much of a pass catcher on perfect dry days let alone a ball spiked like a volleyball on a cold wintery day. Also the ball may have went off two offensive players in a row without a defensive player touching it in between. Between the immaculate deception and the tuck rule the Raiders were involved in starting two football dynasties. Teams I root against still. Go Ravens!!!

Its been over 40 years. And he did catch the ball, regardless of his pass catching (or lack of) abilities in other games. Gotta let it go.

[MutuelClerk]

Can't. And he didn't.

[tucker6]

Can't. And he didn't.
As he said, let it go and take your rightful place behind the Steelers. :cool:

[Stillriledup]

The Steeler SB doesn't fit your theory as it happened IN the SB, and therefore ratings were already assured. That was probably an instance of personal gain on the refs part and not a global conspiracy. :D

A game that comes to mind is the Giants-49ers from about 10-15 years ago where the refs blew the call at the end of the game. 49ers won.

I've seen replays of the Immaculate Reception from various angles, including discussion from physics professors. Ball hit Tatum on the shoulder, which ricocheted to Franco who picked it up at his shoestrings. Incredibly lucky play is all.

I used to think that once the ratings are assured, they don't care who wins, but then why not call a penalty on the James Harrison runback vs Arizona? Cards win that SB probably if there's a call....but the Steelers are much more "high profile" than Zona.

Im not sure either way on the SB, logically it makes sense the ratings are assured, but who knows what really goes on in those corporate meetings and what's really discussed.

[tucker6]

I used to think that once the ratings are assured, they don't care who wins, but then why not call a penalty on the James Harrison runback vs Arizona? Cards win that SB probably if there's a call....but the Steelers are much more "high profile" than Zona.

You mean when Fitzgerald ran 30 yards out of bounds to avoid blockers in his attempt to tackle Harrison??? ;)

[wiffleball whizz]

These games are 100 percent rehearsed

That's why they added the illegal contact flag now that can throw the flag whenever they have to

Also the bowl games were fixed too or at least some were, 49-14 in the 4th western ky cent mich and they score to make it 49-48 but missed the 2 point convo.....kids staying at sportsbook too in Atlantis, prob wrong place for this post but it is what it is

SRU is 100 percent correct in this case

[Stillriledup]

You mean when Fitzgerald ran 30 yards out of bounds to avoid blockers in his attempt to tackle Harrison??? ;)

There's about 40 penalties on Pitt on this runback.

oM1iXHY8s9o

[tucker6]

There's about 40 penalties on Pitt on this runback.

oM1iXHY8s9o
nice dodge :ThmbUp:

Point is that every play has penalties that go uncalled on both sides. The refs had no business picking up the flag in the game Sunday.

Edit to add that the only penalty I saw was a facemask by Zona. :p

[Stillriledup]

nice dodge :ThmbUp:

Point is that every play has penalties that go uncalled on both sides. The refs had no business picking up the flag in the game Sunday.

It doesn't matter if the guy was out of bounds, he never factored into the play other than to leave the field to get a hotdog.

The original point was that is there a situation where the more popular/ratings driven team was on the short end of a major controversial call.

[tucker6]

It doesn't matter if the guy was out of bounds, he never factored into the play other than to leave the field to get a hotdog.


sure it does. That's illegal.

[Stillriledup]

sure it does. That's illegal.

Its not illegal to run out of bounds. It might he illegal (or certainly immoral :D ) to come back in bounds and affect the play, which obviously didnt' happen since Harrison Scored.

[tucker6]

Its not illegal to run out of bounds. It might he illegal (or certainly immoral :D ) to come back in bounds and affect the play, which obviously didnt' happen since Harrison Scored.
read it and weep. Applies to all players in all situations:

Re-entering the Field of Play

A player may not run out of bounds and then run back inbounds to make a play.For example, a receiver may not run down the sidelines, step out of bounds and make a catch. If a player makes a catch under those circumstances, a penalty flag is thrown for illegal touching. However, if the player is shoved out of bounds by a defensive player and then gets back inbounds as quickly as possible, the illegal touching penalty flag is not thrown, and the catch can be ruled as legal by the officials.

[Stillriledup]

read it and weep. Applies to all players in all situations:

Re-entering the Field of Play

A player may not run out of bounds and then run back inbounds to make a play.For example, a receiver may not run down the sidelines, step out of bounds and make a catch. If a player makes a catch under those circumstances, a penalty flag is thrown for illegal touching. However, if the player is shoved out of bounds by a defensive player and then gets back inbounds as quickly as possible, the illegal touching penalty flag is not thrown, and the catch can be ruled as legal by the officials.

But that's not what you said. You said running out of bounds was illegal. Its the running back into bounds that makes it wrong, not just the act of going out of bounds.

[Robert Fischer]

Sorry, SRU. I have to side with Tucker here on this one. You seem to have moved the goalposts.
http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/lockerroom/movinggoalpost.gif

[Robert Fischer]

And I'm trying to remain unbiased.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ikq3OmGW1qf1qcoo1_400.gif

[Stillriledup]

Sorry, SRU. I have to side with Tucker here on this one. You seem to have moved the goalposts.
http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/lockerroom/movinggoalpost.gif

Tucker said its illegal to be out of bounds, i corrected him and said its not. You only get the penalty if you come back in bounds and affect the play.

[tucker6]

Sorry, SRU. I have to side with Tucker here on this one. You seem to have moved the goalposts.

He's still incorrect even with moving the goalposts. The very act of running out of bounds and not immediately seeking to gain reentry is illegal. To then tackle someone upon re-entry is also illegal.

[tucker6]

Tucker said its illegal to be out of bounds, i corrected him and said its not. You only get the penalty if you come back in bounds and affect the play.
Nope. You're still wrong. Give up, you're not winning this one.

[Stillriledup]

He's still incorrect even with moving the goalposts. The very act of running out of bounds and not immediately seeking to gain reentry is illegal. To then tackle someone upon re-entry is also illegal.

Not every guy who is out of bounds gets flagged. Unless i haven't been paying much attention. The part you boldened talks about coming back in bounds as part of the illegality, i dont see anywhere that going out of bounds is a punishable offense.

[tucker6]

Not every guy who is out of bounds gets flagged. Unless i haven't been paying much attention. The part you boldened talks about coming back in bounds as part of the illegality, i dont see anywhere that going out of bounds is a punishable offense.
I see it called several times a season when a guy runs out of bounds and makes no attempt to quickly get inbounds. You can get called for being out of bounds too long and also for being the first to make a hit/tackle after coming back in bounds. Two different fouls. Trust me, I watch a lot of football.

[Stillriledup]

I see it called several times a season when a guy runs out of bounds and makes no attempt to quickly get inbounds. You can get called for being out of bounds too long and also for being the first to make a hit/tackle after coming back in bounds. Two different fouls. Trust me, I watch a lot of football.

jhInj0ZHNC8

[Clocker]

Maybe I don't understand the process, but how does Dallas beating Detroit benefit the NFL? The league sold the TV rights to the games to the networks some time ago. The league already has the money, regardless of ratings for one game. And I have seen no evidence that the ratings for the Green Bay game would be measurably affected by who they are playing. Or that any guesstimate of an impact on the audience for this one game would have any impact on the sale of TV rights for future seasons.

What am I missing?

[tucker6]

Maybe I don't understand the process, but how does Dallas beating Detroit benefit the NFL? The league sold the TV rights to the games to the networks some time ago. The league already has the money, regardless of ratings for one game. And I have seen no evidence that the ratings for the Green Bay game would be measurably affected by who they are playing. Or that any guesstimate of an impact on the audience for this one game would have any impact on the sale of TV rights for future seasons.

What am I missing?
Listen, no one asked you to come in here and dispel SRU's conspiracy theory with a cold slap on the face. As an American, he has a God given right to make asinine connections of unrelated dots. The fact that his conspiracy theories make no sense 90% of the time does not mean we should strip the emperor of his clothes. That is all. :cool:

[delayjf]

My favorite - 1979 Super Bowl, the PI call on Benny Barnes against Lynn Swan.

[Rookies]

Bills fans are so used to getting hosed, they save them up for these occasions. There were several calls this year, including picking up flags, in favour of the "better" teams.

Two famous calls against the Patsies in Fixboro:

1) PI called on a Hail Mary to end the game, giving Brady first down at the 1. Never called previously.

2) A 4th Down failed Yard spot that was advanced 1.5 Yards for a first down in the dying minutes. Head Ref, quoted on mike saying:" Aw, just give it to them (N.E.) :bang: :bang:

Can't make it up.

[proximity]

These games are 100 percent rehearsed


tag team poker is "just gambling" to this poster so football must be really crooked. :D

hopefully the refs are for the colts this weekend!! :jump:

[Stillriledup]

Listen, no one asked you to come in here and dispel SRU's conspiracy theory with a cold slap on the face. As an American, he has a God given right to make asinine connections of unrelated dots. The fact that his conspiracy theories make no sense 90% of the time does not mean we should strip the emperor of his clothes. That is all. :cool:

I don't think he slapped anyone, he was just not informed as to why the Cowboys would create a massive financial boon for the league (vs the Lions). He was hoping for some math to back this up.

Do you have the math to support your position that he's correct and there's zero extra money "floating around" now that the Boys are advancing vs Detroit?

[NJ Stinks]

Maybe I don't understand the process, but how does Dallas beating Detroit benefit the NFL? The league sold the TV rights to the games to the networks some time ago. The league already has the money, regardless of ratings for one game. And I have seen no evidence that the ratings for the Green Bay game would be measurably affected by who they are playing. Or that any guesstimate of an impact on the audience for this one game would have any impact on the sale of TV rights for future seasons.

What am I missing?

Common sense.

[Stillriledup]

Common sense.

I think the Cowboys vs Detroit game was one of the highest rates games (?) or was it the highest rated wild card game? Not sure what they said, but it was an extremely high rated game television-wise at any rate. Some were saying that they don't think the Lions being in the game had much to do with the explosive ratings.

Clocker and Tucker seem to feel the league already has the money, but i would ask how could the league set advertising rates for the following week not knowing who's in the game? Its pretty obvious that they can charge Budweiser and Geico more money for a 30 second commercial during Packers/Cowboys than they could in any matchup involving the lions.....but, i don't know the answer to this or the math, so anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's unless we have some concrete evidence that says advertisers are charged the same amount of money per 30 second spot no matter who is playing.

[Robert Fischer]

Former FBI person backed the NFL's story today about not having seen the Rice tape in an 'independent report'.

How bad would the incompetence have to be before you thought it was more than incompetence?

^^That is what it looks like when it is a large effort of 'more'.

When the broadcast is intentionally designed to manipulate human misjudgement.

Had we seen the 'TV ref' agree blindly with the horrible call, and key celebrity players tweeting agreement with the call, it would have been a tip off of a smooth large-scale effort.

What we saw there in Dallas was either simply terrible incompetence by the referees, or some small-scale cheating by the referees and a third party.

[Clocker]

Clocker and Tucker seem to feel the league already has the money, but i would ask how could the league set advertising rates for the following week not knowing who's in the game?

The league doesn't sell TV spots, the network does. And I don't know a lot about TV ad sales, but I would bet those spots were sold months ago.

According to CNN, NBC, which has the TV rights this year, has already sold 95% of all Super Bowl ad spots.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/super-bowl-ad-space-nbc/

[Clocker]

Common sense.

Thank you for that insightful explanation of TV ratings and ad sales.

[Stillriledup]

Former FBI person backed the NFL's story today about not having seen the Rice tape in an 'independent report'.



^^That is what it looks like when it is a large effort of 'more'.

When the broadcast is intentionally designed to manipulate human misjudgement.

Had we seen the 'TV ref' agree blindly with the horrible call, and key celebrity players tweeting agreement with the call, it would have been a tip off of a smooth large-scale effort.

What we saw there in Dallas was either simply terrible incompetence by the referees, or some small-scale cheating by the referees and a third party.

Funny how the one of the biggest and most valuable companies can just say
"oops we were dumb" whenever something is questioned.

Like Colin Cowherd says if you're generally really smart (yeah, a bazillion dollar company is really smart) you can't get conveniently dumb when you need to.

[Stillriledup]

The league doesn't sell TV spots, the network does. And I don't know a lot about TV ad sales, but I would bet those spots were sold months ago.

According to CNN, NBC, which has the TV rights this year, has already sold 95% of all Super Bowl ad spots.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/super-bowl-ad-space-nbc/

But that's the super bowl. Do we know what Geico, Budweiser and large companies are paying per 30 seconds for GB/DAL and what they would have paid if it was Detroit vs whoever? Why would it be the same when one team generates a HUGE increase in viewers and ratings? I dont know the answer to that.

And, even if theoretically the amount that large companies pay the NFL doesn't change, you still have a conflict of interest because if a big company pays the same for Dallas as they do for "Altoona, Iowa" (or, in this case, Detroit), you have execs of these companies ROOTING for one team to advance. If you were the head of Carls Jr and your price of a 30 second commercial was locked in, wouldn't you be rooting your rear end off for Dallas?

I know you might say what does it matter who they're rooting for and i'll tell you, because the advertisers are satisfied and happier. So, the NFL gets SOMETHING out of it, even if not financial, its happier advertisers who feel they're getting a better bang for their buck than if Detroit advanced.

Television ratings and 30 second commercial prices aside, there must be some other ways the NFL makes money off a better rated game i just don't know enough about it to determine who.

[Clocker]

Television ratings and 30 second commercial prices aside, there must be some other ways the NFL makes money off a better rated game i just don't know enough about it to determine who.

The NFL sells the TV rights to all games years in advance. The networks then own the rights, and get all the ad revenue.

Here is an article announcing a deal between the NFL, Fox, NBC, and CBS for a 9 year contract of TV rights ending in 2022. The NFL gets about $3 billion a year no matter what happens to audiences, ratings, ad revenues, etc. Who plays in the play-offs or Super Bowl this year doesn't affect a penny of NFL revenue.

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-hammers-out-nine-year-rights-renewals-nbc-cbs-fox-137128

[Stillriledup]

The NFL sells the TV rights to all games years in advance. The networks then own the rights, and get all the ad revenue.

Here is an article announcing a deal between the NFL, Fox, NBC, and CBS for a 9 year contract of TV rights ending in 2022. The NFL gets about $3 billion a year no matter what happens to audiences, ratings, ad revenues, etc. Who plays in the play-offs or Super Bowl this year doesn't affect a penny of NFL revenue.

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-hammers-out-nine-year-rights-renewals-nbc-cbs-fox-137128

So, the network can charge more to advertisers for Dallas than they can for Detroit, and maybe there's no short term benefit of Dallas advancing, but at the end of the contract, all the dollars and cents will be viewed, all the numbers will be crunched and the more money the networks made in the 2013-2022 span, will affect how much they are charged in 2023 for the new contract. NFL gains a lot more bargaining power with how much they can charge in the new contract. The money made by the networks in this 9 year span affects this, no?

[tucker6]

I don't think he slapped anyone, he was just not informed as to why the Cowboys would create a massive financial boon for the league (vs the Lions). He was hoping for some math to back this up.

Do you have the math to support your position that he's correct and there's zero extra money "floating around" now that the Boys are advancing vs Detroit?
:bang: :bang: :bang: You're denser than that cheesecake I tried to bake once and left in the oven too long.

I like you SRU, but you belong in CA with the rest of them. :D

[Stillriledup]

:bang: :bang: :bang: You're denser than that cheesecake I tried to bake once and left in the oven too long.

I like you SRU, but you belong in CA with the rest of them. :D

cUh-c4H3gg8

[KingChas]

Thank god they have a new crew for this weeks game in Green Bay!

[Stillriledup]

Thank god they have a new crew for this weeks game in Green Bay!

wow thats hot! :D

[cj]

cUh-c4H3gg8

Think I'm going to limit you to two Youtube embeddings per week. Use them wisely.

[Stillriledup]

Think I'm going to limit you to two Youtube embeddings per week. Use them wisely.

You have to admit this was pretty good though considering the nature of the post i was responding to. :D

[Dahoss2002]

If the NFL need the Packers to win, then YES!!! The overturned reception by Bryant was one of the most horrific things I ever saw.

[Stillriledup]

If the NFL need the Packers to win, then YES!!! The overturned reception by Bryant was one of the most horrific things I ever saw.

Was there any doubt though after last week? If they DONT overturn it, the entire world is 100% convinced that the league fixes games for the cowboys. By overturning it, whether it was right or wrong to do so, they get rid of all that talk.

Of course, those of us who weren't born last night know differently.

[tucker6]

If the NFL need the Packers to win, then YES!!! The overturned reception by Bryant was one of the most horrific things I ever saw.
It was the correct call. The Steelers got the shaft a number on years ago on a similar play. I called it as soon as it happened. For a reception, you MUST maintain possession throughout the catch.

[rastajenk]

It may have been the correct call (see: Calvin Johnson, Jermaine Gresham), but it's something they ought to re-examine.

[Secondbest]

How 'bout them refs!!

[tucker6]

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

[Dahoss2002]

Was there any doubt though after last week? If they DONT overturn it, the entire world is 100% convinced that the league fixes games for the cowboys. By overturning it, whether it was right or wrong to do so, they get rid of all that talk.

Of course, those of us who weren't born last night know differently.
Yea, McCarthy wasn't going to challenge until he got the "buzz" from the booth. ;) lol

[thaskalos]

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

But was the player going to the ground "in the act of catching a pass"...or had he already established control of the ball by taking two steps with the ball in hand...and then briefly lost control of the ball while in the act of reaching for the goal line? If he goes out of bounds instead of going to the ground...isn't it a catch at the 1-yard line?

[Greyfox]

If that call was correct, there is something very rotten about the rule.

Cowboy fans are justified in feeling robbed. NFL rules? :ThmbDown:

[banacek]

But was the player going to the ground "in the act of catching a pass"

I thought he was falling to the ground the whole time (the steps he took were while falling to the ground), so to me the call was correct. I was waiting for the challenge flag. I also think the rule is wrong, but it is the rule.

[rastajenk]

Sometimes even the rules experts in the booth get it wrong. I agree with the ruling just now in Denver, but it sure does lack consistency. What is this, horse racing? :lol:

[tucker6]

But was the player going to the ground "in the act of catching a pass"...or had he already established control of the ball by taking two steps with the ball in hand...and then briefly lost control of the ball while in the act of reaching for the goal line? If he goes out of bounds instead of going to the ground...isn't it a catch at the 1-yard line?
Makes no difference whether he was out of bounds, in bounds, or in the endzone. Doesn't matter whether he had control at one point in time. Once he comes to the ground, he MUST maintain possession. Nothing in the rule talks about control or football move or anything else. When coming to the ground after making a catch, you must maintain control throughout. I see it several times a year. But I watch a lot of football though. Not real fond of this rule, but I called it live as it was apparent that this is what happened.

[thaskalos]

Makes no difference whether he was out of bounds, in bounds, or in the endzone. Doesn't matter whether he had control at one point in time. Once he comes to the ground, he MUST maintain possession. Nothing in the rule talks about control or football move or anything else. When coming to the ground after making a catch, you must maintain control throughout. I see it several times a year. But I watch a lot of football though. Not real fond of this rule, but I called it live as it was apparent that this is what happened.
The rule was instituted for those occasions when the receiver goes to the ground right after catching the ball. This clearly wasn't the case here. The receiver obviously had control of the ball...and he only lost control when he extended for the end zone. Not your typical "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass" play...IMO.

Bad rule...and i'll bet you never see it again.

[tucker6]

The rule was instituted for those occasions when the receiver goes to the ground right after catching the ball. This clearly wasn't the case here. The receiver obviously had control of the ball...and he only lost control when he extended for the end zone. Not your typical "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass" play...IMO.

Bad rule...and i'll bet you never see it again.
Yes it was, and you name the bet. There have been much more egregious calls under this rule that didn't end the rule. This was tame in comparison.

[Rookies]

Hate the Cowgirls and believe Bryant is one entitled, arrogant arse.

That being said... absolutely a catch. Agree with some here and Bryant himself, who just describe what he did on ESPN, as follows...

"Some would argue that Bryant satisfied the league's definition of a catch based on Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the rule book. According to the wording of that Article, a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained "control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game."

In this case, Bryant took two steps and lunged toward the goal line. Why was this not an "act common to the game"? Because, by NFL rules, Bryant did it while going to the ground. He never established himself as "upright." Steratore, in Sunday's official pool report, said: "In our judgment, [Bryant] … continued to fall and never had another act common to the game."

The catch, the 2-3 steps and the " any act common to the game" is his stated attempt to score a TD by extending his arm with the ball to the Goal Line. Absurd, that that should be considered part of the prior catch, rather than simply going down after the catch.

[tucker6]

The catch, the 2-3 steps and the " any act common to the game" is his stated attempt to score a TD by extending his arm with the ball to the Goal Line. Absurd, that that should be considered part of the prior catch, rather than simply going down after the catch.
The problem with everything you say in this paragraph is the first two words. From the NFL point of view, Bryant did not complete the catch because he was in the process of falling to the ground. The important term in the rule is falling to the ground. If falling to the ground, you must maintain possession throughout in order for the catch to be completed. If falling to the ground, the ref does not count his steps, nor does he count anything as a football move because Dez has yet to complete the pass catch according to the rule. That seems to be where everyone is having an issue understanding the rule. Two steps and a football move are post-catch terms in football. However, in this circumstance, Dez did not yet complete the catch, and therefore those two things do not apply.

[rastajenk]

You've done a good job explaining the rule. Now can you explain why it's the rule. "The ground can't cause a fumble" is a phrase we've heard hundreds of times when running backs hit the turf hard; and sometimes a receiver has the ball a fraction of a second before he gets popped and it's ruled a fumble, not incomplete. Where is the logic that a guy can go sailing out of bounds and touch the pylon as the ball is coming out his hands and get credit for a cheap TD, but a receiver with two hands on the ball has an extra level of responsibility? I think that's all most of us are asking: why?

[tucker6]

You've done a good job explaining the rule. Now can you explain why it's the rule. "The ground can't cause a fumble" is a phrase we've heard hundreds of times when running backs hit the turf hard; and sometimes a receiver has the ball a fraction of a second before he gets popped and it's ruled a fumble, not incomplete. Where is the logic that a guy can go sailing out of bounds and touch the pylon as the ball is coming out his hands and get credit for a cheap TD, but a receiver with two hands on the ball has an extra level of responsibility? I think that's all most of us are asking: why?
You may be mixing up different rules and circumstances in your questions. Some answers:

"The ground can't cause a fumble"

This phrase is used post-possession. Since Dez didn't complete possession according to the rule, this phrase is non-applicable. If Dez had caught the ball and taken two steps in a non falling manner, he'd have gotten possession and your phrase would apply.

sometimes a receiver has the ball a fraction of a second before he gets popped and it's ruled a fumble, not incomplete. Where is the logic that a guy can go sailing out of bounds and touch the pylon as the ball is coming out his hands and get credit for a cheap TD

Again, these two examples are for a person who has already established possession. Dez did not. There are different rules for pre-possession and post-possession. Dez's 'catch' falls under pre-possession rules.

a receiver with two hands on the ball has an extra level of responsibility? I think that's all most of us are asking: why?

No extra responsibility. A receiver's primary responsibility has and always will be to possess the ball. If upright, that would be taking two steps. If falling, that would be maintaining possession while hitting the ground. As simply as that. If the receiver fails at either task, it is incomplete and not a fumble.

As far as this specific rule goes, it is a clarification to the original rule, which believe it or not was vague as to what constituted possession. The league specifically inserted language into the rules to describe that falling down while catching negated both the two step rule and the football move rule. You CANNOT make a football move UNTIL you have established possession, and under this rule, Dez did not. Again, the key to this rule is falling to the ground. Once the ref finds that Dez is falling and not stepping of his own free will, this rule comes into play and everything that follows it.

Hope that helps. I don't like either team, so I have no allegiance whatsoever.

[rastajenk]

Nah, didn't help a bit. :D

It was a rough weekend for NFL officiating.

[tucker6]

Nah, didn't help a bit. :D

It was a rough weekend for NFL officiating.
I'm the first to hate on the refs, but I think they got the big ones correct. Namely this one and the patriots substitution issue. Of course overall I think the refs are substandard this year, but I only saw the typical stupidity this weekend. :D

[tucker6]

Nah, didn't help a bit. :D


Then think of it this way if you are the ref. Dez catches the ball as seen yesterday. Was he standing or falling? The answer to this question makes ALL the difference.

If standing, then did he make a football move (steps or lunging to the endzone) before losing possession.

If falling to the ground, did he maintain possession throughout the entire process regardless of any football move.

See the difference? This rule happens every game when guys catch a ball on the sidelines and goes falling to the ground out of bounds. Before the ref signals a catch, they make sure the receiver maintained possession and control throughout his contact with the ground. If he loses control due to the ground, it's an incomplete pass. The Dez catch is absolutely no different, and falls under the same rule.

[rastajenk]

I'm watching it over and over now on Mike and Mike, and I'm not even convinced the ball hit the ground. The ball pops up on the player's contact with the ground, but he never lets it hit the ground after that, and the whole sequence was clearly in bounds, so that's not an issue. All I'm saying is that a game played by large men on a large field shouldn't be decided by such miniscule hair-splitting by wonks in a booth.

You need not explain it to me again. I get what you're saying. All I'm saying is that the NFL should re-examine why they want to interpret similar plays in that manner.

[Rookies]

You may be mixing up different rules and circumstances in your questions. Some answers:

"The ground can't cause a fumble"

This phrase is used post-possession. Since Dez didn't complete possession according to the rule, this phrase is non-applicable. If Dez had caught the ball and taken two steps in a non falling manner, he'd have gotten possession and your phrase would apply.

sometimes a receiver has the ball a fraction of a second before he gets popped and it's ruled a fumble, not incomplete. Where is the logic that a guy can go sailing out of bounds and touch the pylon as the ball is coming out his hands and get credit for a cheap TD

Again, these two examples are for a person who has already established possession. Dez did not. There are different rules for pre-possession and post-possession. Dez's 'catch' falls under pre-possession rules.

a receiver with two hands on the ball has an extra level of responsibility? I think that's all most of us are asking: why?

No extra responsibility. A receiver's primary responsibility has and always will be to possess the ball. If upright, that would be taking two steps. If falling, that would be maintaining possession while hitting the ground. As simply as that. If the receiver fails at either task, it is incomplete and not a fumble.

As far as this specific rule goes, it is a clarification to the original rule, which believe it or not was vague as to what constituted possession. The league specifically inserted language into the rules to describe that falling down while catching negated both the two step rule and the football move rule. You CANNOT make a football move UNTIL you have established possession, and under this rule, Dez did not. Again, the key to this rule is falling to the ground. Once the ref finds that Dez is falling and not stepping of his own free will, this rule comes into play and everything that follows it.

Hope that helps. I don't like either team, so I have no allegiance whatsoever.

Your explanations are great.

Those of us who don't see it "as the NFL does", would then suggest that the NFL puts a higher standard on its Receivers than its Running Backs in breaking some imaginary plane.

Again, after we got over the wonder of Bryant's highly athletic catch, on the first replay, we were wondering... 'What is he trying to do?' post catch?

Clearly, as he stated and we witnessed he was diving for the End Zone to score late in the game.

The NFL is telling all Receivers, because of this rule, DO NOT attempt to score in this situation by diving for the Goal Line. If you hit the ground and the ball comes lose in any way, it will go back to being part of the catch.

Even, if you do extend your hand over the imaginary plane, as you hit the ground.

Absurd differential and needs review.

[tucker6]

The NFL is telling all Receivers, because of this rule, DO NOT attempt to score in this situation by diving for the Goal Line. If you hit the ground and the ball comes lose in any way, it will go back to being part of the catch.

Even, if you do extend your hand over the imaginary plane, as you hit the ground.

Absurd differential and needs review.
The bolded has been true for some time. My first memory of this rule was maybe 6-8 years ago when a Steeler receiver caught the ball at the 3 and lunged for the end zone like a running back. Everything Dez did, and even more obvious a football move. Ruled an incomplete pass because the ball came loose after hitting the ground. I hate the rule, but it is what it is.

[cj]

Hmmm, this one was a catch though?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

[thaskalos]

Hmmm, this one was a catch though?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game
Thanks, Cj...and that confirms what I was starting to suspect. The NFL officials are worse than our stewards. I'd love to see Tucker6's opinion on the ref's commentary of this "catch".

[thaskalos]

To review...if the receiver gets both feet down after the catch...then he doesn't have to hold on to the ball all the way to the ground. Did you hear that tucker6? :)

[rastajenk]

My only other comment (for the time being ;) ) is that, if the play had been ruled a catch, would Packer fans be moaning that they got jobbed, and if so, would anyone be taking them seriously? I have to think not.

[magwell]

It was a catch and a bad reverse by the refs, end of story.....(btw I wanted the Packers to win. but still say it was a good catch)

[tucker6]

Thanks, Cj...and that confirms what I was starting to suspect. The NFL officials are worse than our stewards. I'd love to see Tucker6's opinion on the ref's commentary of this "catch".
If you guys would remove your bias in this case, you'd read my last several posts and see that this ruling was consistent with my explanations. See my post made at 8:05am today. It explains the decision tree perfectly. They felt he was upright and got two feet down. I concur. Everything that happens after that is post-possession. In Dez's case, they felt he was falling and not upright. I concur. Different rules apply.

[thaskalos]

If you guys would remove your bias in this case, you'd read my last several posts and see that this ruling was consistent with my explanations. See my post made at 8:05am today. It explains the decision tree perfectly. They felt he was upright and got two feet down. I concur. Everything that happens after that is post-possession. In Dez's case, they felt he was falling and not upright. I concur. Different rules apply.
Maybe you didn't watch the Dez catch as closely as you thought you did. When Dez caught the ball...he was upright. Good try though... :ThmbUp:

[tucker6]

Maybe you didn't watch the Dez catch as closely as you thought you did. When Dez caught the ball...he was upright. Good try though... :ThmbUp:
Like I said, bias can be a wonderful thing. :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Like I said, bias can be a wonderful thing. :ThmbUp:

No bias here. I hate the Cowboys...and I like Romo even less.

[Rookies]

Maybe you didn't watch the Dez catch as closely as you thought you did. When Dez caught the ball...he was upright. Good try though... :ThmbUp:

THAT is the interpretation of those of us who are contrary to the NFL review. He caught the ball and THEN he took 2-3 steps trying to score. Believing, of course, that he HAD caught it and anything further, could only add to the catch, unless he fumbled through the back/side of the End Zone.

He obviously did not (and segue here- where is the actual frame where the ball touches the ground btw) and therefore, this part should not be part of the catch rule. The NFL believes he was falling; whereas many of us believe he was diving for the End Zone post catch.

The Cinci catch at the sideline shows that the rule is easily manipulated, either way.

[Rookies]

No bias here. I hate the Cowboys...and I like Romo even less.

As do I.

Not called 'America's most hated Team' for nada!

And Bryant simply reinforces my opinion.

[tucker6]

No bias here. I hate the Cowboys...and I like Romo even less.
yet you have some bias if you think those two plays are anywhere the same. They are not even close to the same, nor do they even fall under the same set of rules.

[tucker6]

The Cinci catch at the sideline shows that the rule is easily manipulated, either way.
Different rule, so the Dez rule wasn't manipulated whatsoever.

[thaskalos]

yet you have some bias if you think those two plays are anywhere the same. They are not even close to the same.
I'll make a prediction:

If we post a poll here on our two opinions...my opinion will win out by at least a 5-1 ratio.

[tucker6]

I'll make a prediction:

If we post a poll here on our two opinions...my opinion will win out by at least a 5-1 ratio.
Oh, I didn't know accuracy was based on public opinion. Good to know.

[thaskalos]

Oh, I didn't know accuracy was based on public opinion. Good to know.

Is it your assumption that "accuracy" is better indicated by the MINORITY opinion? What does this say about our judicial system?

[tucker6]

Is it your assumption that "accuracy" is better indicated by the MINORITY opinion? What does this say about our judicial system?
I'm not the one who intimated that an opinion poll was equated with accuracy. You did my friend. I only live in your world. :)

[thaskalos]

I'm not the one who intimated that an opinion poll was equated with accuracy. You did my friend. I only live in your world. :)

This was a catch...and the Cinci ruling that Cj posted earlier today PROVES that it was a catch. Look at the difference in the wording of your posts #63 and #67 in this thread. In post #63 yesterday, you are cut-and-dry; "there is no such thing as a 'football move' in the rules...you must control the ball all the way to the ground, and that's it.". But in post #67...now you provide additional explanations...probably as a result of additional research by you. Now, there IS such a thing as a "football move"...and you no longer stick to the "keep-control-of-the-ball-all-the-way-to-the-ground" mantra. Now we get "pre-catch" and "post-catch" definitions.

You are about as consistent as these refs... :)

[tucker6]

This was a catch...and the Cinci ruling that Cj posted earlier today PROVES that it was a catch. Look at the difference in the wording of your posts #63 and #67 in this thread. In post #63 yesterday, you are cut-and-dry; "there is no such thing as a 'football move' in the rules...you must control the ball all the way to the ground, and that's it.". But in post #67...now you provide additional explanations...probably as a result of additional research by you. Now, there IS such a thing as a "football move"...and you no longer stick to the "keep-control-of-the-ball-all-the-way-to-the-ground" mantra. You are about as consistent as these refs... :)
Thas, the reason why you 'believe' I have changed my opinion is that I am referring to two different things. There certainly IS such a thing as a football move, but in Dez's case, he has to obtain full possession before he can have a football move counted as one. He didn't obtain full possession as he was not upright but falling during his catch attempt according to the rules. In the Cincy case, they ruled that he had achieved possession due to the upright nature of his catch, and so therefore the two feet in bounds was his football move. Maybe this is one of those times where not enough words can be written to convey the image.

[thaskalos]

Thas, the reason why you 'believe' I have changed my opinion is that I am referring to two different things. There certainly IS such a thing as a football move, but in Dez's case, he has to obtain full possession before he can have a football move counted as one. He didn't obtain full possession as he was not upright but falling during his catch attempt according to the rules. In the Cincy case, they ruled that he had achieved possession due to the upright nature of his catch, and so therefore the two feet in bounds was his football move. Maybe this is one of those times where not enough words can be written to convey the image.
I have watched Dez's catch many times...and I have a completely different impression than the one that you and the refs have formed. To me...Bryant caught the ball in an upright position...and put both feet down while still upright. What this "in the act of falling" bullshit means I don't understand. The man had possession of the ball...even as he stretched his arm out to reach the end zone. It was robbery, plain and simple. And I like Green Bay 100 times more than I do the Cowboys.

[tucker6]

To me...Bryant caught the ball in an upright position...and put both feet down while still upright. What this "in the act of falling" bullshit means I don't understand.
I believe you do understand what is meant but are unwilling to admit it. I know it without further explanation, and you're at least as smart as me so I know you do as well.

[thaskalos]

I believe you do understand what is meant but are unwilling to admit it. I know it without further explanation, and you're at least as smart as me so I know you do as well.
Believe me...you are not the first to overestimate me. :)

[Rookies]

Full disclosure. I had bet and taken the Cowgirls yesterday in a pool. The result of this play was nada as I covered, anyway.

Given that the majority- vast majority of NFL fans strongly dislike the team, their boastful prick of an owner and Bryant himself (who sources have said needs to have a team 'bodyguard'.... Errr tail, because he is such a degenerate), but yet are digging in here to back the belief that the NFL FUBARed this one, tells you everything.

We have not seen the frame yet that conclusively shows the ball hitting the ground, without Bryant's hand(s) possessing it. And well beyond all that, we certainly believe Bryant took 2-3 feet forward trying to score a TD by extending the ball towards the GL, rather than falling to the ground post catch.

[tucker6]

We have not seen the frame yet that conclusively shows the ball hitting the ground,
We certainly did. Many times and from different angles. As soon as the ball hit the ground and jiggled in Dez's hand, it was over. Whether you believe he had completed possession by then is another matter, but you can't say you didn't see the ball hit the ground.

[cj]

No bias here. I hate the Cowboys...and I like Romo even less.

Same here for the Cowboys, though I respect Romo. Dez is a knucklehead I'll never root for though.

[delayjf]

We have not seen the frame yet that conclusively shows the ball hitting the ground, without Bryant's hand(s) possessing it. And well beyond all that, we certainly believe Bryant took 2-3 feet forward trying to score a TD by extending the ball towards the GL, rather than falling to the ground post catch.

One comment I saw from Vice-President of Officiating is that Bryant "didn't stretch out or extend himself enough to warrant a football move - Unbelievable. And yes the ball did move, but Bryant maintained possession and since he was never out of bounds, it should have been a catch.

[cj]

One comment I saw from Vice-President of Officiating is that Bryant "didn't stretch out or extend himself enough to warrant a football move - Unbelievable. And yes the ball did move, but Bryant maintained possession and since he was never out of bounds, it should have been a catch.

Absurd for him to say that. Maybe he was using this as a way to curtail the talk of him being on the Dallas party bus.

Heard today Steven Jones actually is on the committee that voted the rule in. Even though I think it is a bad rule, I still think it was a catch despite the rule.

[Stillriledup]

Of course it was a football move and here's why. Because as an elite receiver at the highest level of football, that guy knows exactly where he is on the field and he knows how to fall, how to get tackled and the like. If he was already in the end zone, he would have known it and his movements and actions would have been consistent with a guy knowing his catch was a TD and he would have been just trying to hold the ball. His actions as they stood were the actions of a guy who knew he wasn't yet in the end zone..you don't fall the way he fell if you have already scored.

[tucker6]

Of course it was a football move and here's why. Because as an elite receiver at the highest level of football, that guy knows exactly where he is on the field and he knows how to fall, how to get tackled and the like. If he was already in the end zone, he would have known it and his movements and actions would have been consistent with a guy knowing his catch was a TD and he would have been just trying to hold the ball. His actions as they stood were the actions of a guy who knew he wasn't yet in the end zone..you don't fall the way he fell if you have already scored.
Again, none of that matters. if the ref thinks you are falling to the ground after catching the ball, you still have to prove possession upon hitting to the ground. Simple concept yet many fail to understand it.

[cj]

Again, none of that matters. if the ref thinks you are falling to the ground after catching the ball, you still have to prove possession upon hitting to the ground. Simple concept yet many fail to understand it.

We understand it, we just don't think it is applied consistently. Seen similar called a catch plenty.

Here is the truth about the rule anyway. It was made as a bailout to refs that kept screwing up calls on receptions and/or whether or not it is a fumble after. Now that replay is in much wider use, it needs to go back to the old way, if you have possession when either two feet hit the ground or you are legally down, it is a catch. There is no need to have rules that are so complicated for a football game.

[banacek]

Again, none of that matters. if the ref thinks you are falling to the ground after catching the ball, you still have to prove possession upon hitting to the ground. Simple concept yet many fail to understand it.

That's why i assumed it would be overturned. Still don't like the rule, but it's the rule.

And if Dez wasn't falling to the ground and was upright, why didn't he just walk into the end zone?

[Stillriledup]

Again, none of that matters. if the ref thinks you are falling to the ground after catching the ball, you still have to prove possession upon hitting to the ground. Simple concept yet many fail to understand it.

It doesn't matter what the ref thinks because they now have the ability to review the play in slow motion, in high def, from many different angles. The ref is inconsequential as we saw. The ref "thought" it was a catch, that was the call on the field. Not sure why something like that got overturned, nothing was "conclusive" that was one that should have just been left alone.

[Rookies]

That's why i assumed it would be overturned. Still don't like the rule, but it's the rule.

And if Dez wasn't falling to the ground and was upright, why didn't he just walk into the end zone?

Good question.

Again, I think it was the timing of the game and he wasn't aware whether any other Packer defender was going to come over and reef him. So, he chose to provide the smallest target and dove for the End Zone.

The fact that he didn't just fall down and crumple on that spot on the field, proves the point of those of us who say he was trying to engage in a football move and score.

[Rookies]

"NFL Network's Rich Eisen then asked Blandino if he and officials considered Bryant's lunge for the end zone to be a "football move."

“Yeah, absolutely," Blandino said. "We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”

COME ON MAN! :bang: :lol: :mad: :bang: :confused:

"Replays appear to show Bryant, in a fluid sequences of moves, catching the ball with two hands, stopping the rotation of the ball, then taking three steps (he even kicks up some turf on his third step) as he switches the ball to his left hand and dives forward with the ball one-handed as he goes to the ground. When Bryant hits the ground, with the ball at about the 1-yard line, it jars loose a bit, and then as he rolls over into the end zone, it pops out of his grasp before he clutches it again."


Your job should be in jeopardy with that nonsense, Pinocchio!

[rastajenk]

The "Calvin Johnson rule" is obviously biased against big guys with big hands that can do more than just tuck the ball (oh no! another tuck rule!) after a catch before making a move. If it had been Jordy Nelson or Wes Welker or someone like that, the play (probably wouldn't have happened) would have stood as called.

[burnsy]

The "Calvin Johnson rule" is obviously biased against big guys with big hands that can do more than just tuck the ball (oh no! another tuck rule!) after a catch before making a move. If it had been Jordy Nelson or Wes Welker or someone like that, the play (probably wouldn't have happened) would have stood as called.

You are right those guys can palm the ball with one hand, somehow that's not "possession" even though they could carry it that way for miles....but the rule is the rule. Ray Lewis is on this week talking about the original "tuck" (vs. NE, Brady) and he's right its pretty much BS, that was a fumble. But he goes on to say that all these goofy rules just muddle the picture and kind of complicates a complicated ,fast moving, crowded game. I agree with him all these rules are adhered to, but it turns the outcomes into a joke in certain instances. If people are talking about the "call" on Monday morning, that's not really good for a game like football. Its football, its not basketball. Men are supposed to be hitting each other. Ray Lewis is a blow hard on some things but he is 100% correct on this, the game (should not), the players and the fans don't want all these goofy rulings during a big game. Too many rules now.

[Stillriledup]

"NFL Network's Rich Eisen then asked Blandino if he and officials considered Bryant's lunge for the end zone to be a "football move."

“Yeah, absolutely," Blandino said. "We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”

COME ON MAN! :bang: :lol: :mad: :bang: :confused:

"Replays appear to show Bryant, in a fluid sequences of moves, catching the ball with two hands, stopping the rotation of the ball, then taking three steps (he even kicks up some turf on his third step) as he switches the ball to his left hand and dives forward with the ball one-handed as he goes to the ground. When Bryant hits the ground, with the ball at about the 1-yard line, it jars loose a bit, and then as he rolls over into the end zone, it pops out of his grasp before he clutches it again."


Your job should be in jeopardy with that nonsense, Pinocchio!

Here's how i look at it.

If Bryant was in the endzone when he made this catch, would his moves be exactly the same? Or, were his moves consistent with a guy who knew he wasn't yet in the end zone?

[Clocker]

Ray Lewis is a real genius:

it’s the only reason we know—I’m just being honest!—the only reason we know who Tom Brady is, because of a tuck rule!

[MutuelClerk]

Is deflating footballs controversial? If you aint cheating, you aint trying.

[Stillriledup]

Is deflating footballs controversial? If you aint cheating, you aint trying.

Harbaugh calls them out for cheating with some odd formations, now you have "ball gate" along with Spygate and thru all this, and the stuff we don't even know about, Belichick hasn't served one second of one minute of one hour of one day of one week of one year of suspension.

Sean Payton on the other hand...

[Stillriledup]

These games are 100 percent rehearsed

That's why they added the illegal contact flag now that can throw the flag whenever they have to

Also the bowl games were fixed too or at least some were, 49-14 in the 4th western ky cent mich and they score to make it 49-48 but missed the 2 point convo.....kids staying at sportsbook too in Atlantis, prob wrong place for this post but it is what it is

SRU is 100 percent correct in this case

Thank you Whizz.

Read this carefully, you might get a big kick out of it.

http://thefixisin.net/theproof.html

[Stillriledup]

Interesting article, 154 page "document" on the NFL's "demands" for any city who wants to host the SB. Right down to the most painstaking minute detail.

But, of course, they just stick old incompetent refs out there and just let the games fall in completely random fashion while preserving the honesty and integrity that the NFL is known for. One thing about them...they're painfully meticulous when it comes to their super bowl, but as far as who gets there and how they get there? All random, the players all decide it on the field and the refs just make judgment calls to the best of their abilities. :rolleyes:

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/262253921.html

[Stillriledup]

-VHHkbzqu9I

[Stillriledup]

Interesting how "things" seem to always work out in favor of the NFL. Lots of deflategate discussion, lots of "cheating hype" increased ratings for the game, than after the game, the "bought and paid for" media stops talking about it, we get these silly leaked stories about the Falcons piping sound, the Browns sending text messages and Jerry Rice talking about Stickem and poof, no fine, no suspension, no investigation, Belichick and Brady off scot free and its all forgotten...NFL makes out like a bandit...once again.

As usual, they "win" in the end.

[thaskalos]

Interesting how "things" seem to always work out in favor of the NFL. Lots of deflategate discussion, lots of "cheating hype" increased ratings for the game, than after the game, the "bought and paid for" media stops talking about it, we get these silly leaked stories about the Falcons piping sound, the Browns sending text messages and Jerry Rice talking about Stickem and poof, no fine, no suspension, no investigation, Belichick and Brady off scot free and its all forgotten...NFL makes out like a bandit...once again.

As usual, they "win" in the end.
Sports have embraced the "entertainment" concept, SRU...and by doing so, they've stopped being "real" sports.

Do you remember the old Dick Van Dyke show...where all the main stars were working for the Alan Brady show...which was supposedly the highest rated show at that time? Do you recall how much time they spent talking about how to satisfy the "sponsor"? The sponsor wanted this, and the sponsor wanted that...so, a lot of thought would go into satisfying the "sponsor". Well...that was similar to what is taking place now with the NFL. The NFL is the Alan Brady show, the number one show in the land...and TV is the sponsor. And the sponsor has certain demands...which the NFL has to address. When you accept the kind of money that the NFL gets from TV-land...then you become more "Show-business" than you are a "sporting event". The satisfaction of the "sponsor" is always in the forefront of your mind.

Sure...you will occasionally deal with those super-competitive athlete types...who are motivated strictly by the athletic aspect of the game. But you remind them that there is a lot more money to be made by being an "entertainer"...than there is by being strictly an athlete.

Football is a year-round business...for heaven's sake. I turned on my radio today...and they were talking about the impending Russell Wilson contract. :)

[Stillriledup]

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?220031-Is-the-NFL-an-Entertainment-Business-like-the-WWE

Read the posts of the original poster here, some good stuff. (i stopped reading after the OP was done)

[Robert Fischer]

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?220031-Is-the-NFL-an-Entertainment-Business-like-the-WWE

Read the posts of the original poster here, some good stuff. (i stopped reading after the OP was done)

Good stuff ^^.

And I think Thaskalos' last post (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1778356&postcount=120)was similar to that OP, and concise as well.

It comes down to seeing and understanding the system.
There are several people on this board (including SRU and myself) who have had a fair amount of success with point spreads from the various major sports, while incorporating things like 'League Incentive' and 'line movement'.

The fact that there are at times greater incentives than team glory, and that these incentives are occasionally pursued is a concept that itself seems very groundbreaking and difficult for much of the fanbase.

Beyond that, there can also be the challenge of separating emotional involvement with an individual game. This can blur the line between the set of 'ALL upsetting or disappointing outcomes', and the subset of 'calls that may have been incentive-based'.

[Stillriledup]

Good stuff ^^.

And I think Thaskalos' last post (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1778356&postcount=120)was similar to that OP, and concise as well.

It comes down to seeing and understanding the system.
There are several people on this board (including SRU and myself) who have had a fair amount of success with point spreads from the various major sports, while incorporating things like 'League Incentive' and 'line movement'.

The fact that there are at times greater incentives than team glory, and that these incentives are occasionally pursued is a concept that itself seems very groundbreaking and difficult for much of the fanbase.

Beyond that, there can also be the challenge of separating emotional involvement with an individual game. This can blur the line between the set of 'ALL upsetting or disappointing outcomes', and the subset of 'calls that may have been incentive-based'.

Thanks.

I think it really comes down to this. If there's no actual real life law that's being broken, why wouldn't leagues try and maximize revenue, i know fans would love to feel that what they're watching is "pure sport" and that the most important thing is the integrity of the games, but that's just not how real life works. I know we all wish it was different.

[proximity]

hey sru, I can't believe you're not all over this la'el Collins signing being a conspiracy??:confused:

[Stillriledup]

hey sru, I can't believe you're not all over this la'el Collins signing being a conspiracy??:confused:
who?