View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:37 pm



Reply to topic  [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
 Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 11 
Author Message
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


In other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:10 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
packers season is toast


Not yet, the injuries might be too much but we are two games out, play both the Vikes and Lions once again yet, and they play each other once to go.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:10 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Nunin wrote:
so, point one seems to resolve it. if you fall to the ground on purpose you are declaring yourself down....
the difference being that a head first slide opens you up to being hit, which is why QBs are coached to slide feet first.


No, point 1 doesn't resolve it - here it is again: (1) falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance

It doesn't just say falling to the ground, is says you also have to clearly make no immediate effort to advance. I think they worded it this way so if a player stumbles and falls to the ground he can still get up and run, otherwise the ref doesn't always know for sure if a player is really giving himself up. By sliding feet first, then they know he is giving himself up.

Bottom line is going to the ground on purpose doesn't mean you are giving yourself up (unless you slide feet first).


i disagree...if you intentionally go to the ground, ie take a knee, you are down. if you stumble and fall you can get up and go if untouched. happens all the time. but saying a QB who dives to avoid being tackled has not given himself up in the same manner is confusing to me.

the rule is speaking clearly to intent


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:10 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:
No, point 1 doesn't resolve it - here it is again: (1) falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance

It doesn't just say falling to the ground, is says you also have to clearly make no immediate effort to advance.


Right.. and Rodgers didn't make an immediate effort to advance.

This rule obviously requires some judgment on the part of the officials but a runner can't intentionally go to the ground to avoid contact and then advance the ball.


That is an excellent way of putting it. :thumbsup:


Yay! We've finally resolved it. :)


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:11 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:
packers season is toast


Not yet, the injuries might be too much but we are two games out, play both the Vikes and Lions once again yet, and they play each other once to go.

speaking figuratively i was


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:11 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:
packers season is toast


Not yet, the injuries might be too much but we are two games out, play both the Vikes and Lions once again yet, and they play each other once to go.

speaking figuratively i was



Yoda! You're a Vikes fan!


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:12 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


I other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.



((sigh)) i agree. it brings to mind the shiancoe catch that wasn't


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:12 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


Except for the fact that by him diving head first it doesn't prevent a defender from hitting him. A defender should know that he can still hit him legally. So according to the rule, if Rodgers had immediately gotten back up after diving to the ground, he could have advanced the ball. Since he didn't do that immediately, then yes, it should be called dead.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:13 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


I other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.


I didnt think it was a td either but the endzone is different then the field of play in how long you need to possess it, as is the fact that he wasnt going to the ground.

Right, you who absolves the Patriots of never winning a SB without a cheating scandal claim Rodgers was 'Cheating' trying to take advantage of a rule, its his choice to dive or slide if he wants, he isnt responsible for what the opposing players do.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:13 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


I other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.



((sigh)) i agree. it brings to mind the shiancoe catch that wasn't


Why didnt you challange that? If its the game im thinking of there was 3, yes 3 incorrectly ruled tds in the vikings favor that night and all of then were challenged and overturned.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:15 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


Except for the fact that by him diving head first it doesn't prevent a defender from hitting him. A defender should know that he can still hit him legally. So according to the rule, if Rodgers had immediately gotten back up after diving to the ground, he could have advanced the ball. Since he didn't do that immediately, then yes, it should be called dead.



it is a little grey right there.....i do believe. but that case would only seem to have merit if the runner was diving toward a goal, ie 1st down or td....whereas Rodgers was clearly diving so he wouldn't have to take a hit.

i guess the solution is just to smash him good once he dives


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:


((sigh)) i agree. it brings to mind the shiancoe catch that wasn't


Why didnt you challange that? If its the game im thinking of there was 3, yes 3 incorrectly ruled tds in the vikings favor that night and all of then were challenged and overturned.


my challenge flag was in my other pants


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:18 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Jordysghost wrote:
I didnt think it was a td either but the endzone is different then the field of play in how long you need to possess it, as is the fact that he wasnt going to the ground.

Right, you who absolves the Patriots of never winning a SB without a cheating scandal claim Rodgers was 'Cheating' trying to take advantage of a rule, its his choice to dive or slide if he wants, he isnt responsible for what the opposing players do.


:roll:

It's as if you don't even comprehend the discussion.

The "cheating" occurred when intentionally going to the ground, waiting, and then trying to advance the ball. That's not taking advantage of a rule. that's breaking one. It's not the same thing.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:18 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:
packers season is toast


Not yet, the injuries might be too much but we are two games out, play both the Vikes and Lions once again yet, and they play each other once to go.

speaking figuratively i was


I hear you, but I think its more then just a statistical possibility at this point, but again, the injuries to the secondary are just getting overwhelming.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:19 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Nunin wrote:
so, point one seems to resolve it. if you fall to the ground on purpose you are declaring yourself down....


Exactly. It doesn't matter if it's head first or feet first. If the runner goes down intentionally, on his own, he's declaring himself down.


Have to disagree. Now you are requiring the refs to make a judgement call. Did he go down intentionally or did he just trip? And if it doesn't make any difference, then why allow him to be hit if he slides head first but not feet first?


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:19 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:


((sigh)) i agree. it brings to mind the shiancoe catch that wasn't


Why didnt you challange that? If its the game im thinking of there was 3, yes 3 incorrectly ruled tds in the vikings favor that night and all of then were challenged and overturned.


my challenge flag was in my other pants


Just seems like more of a team issue then an officiating issue.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:20 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
I didnt think it was a td either but the endzone is different then the field of play in how long you need to possess it, as is the fact that he wasnt going to the ground.

Right, you who absolves the Patriots of never winning a SB without a cheating scandal claim Rodgers was 'Cheating' trying to take advantage of a rule, its his choice to dive or slide if he wants, he isnt responsible for what the opposing players do.


:roll:


Which part of the sentence isnt true? Im curious why you think Rodgers responsible for the Defense.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:21 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
to disagree. Now you are requiring the refs to make a judgement call.


:wallbang: Yes, which they're required to do constantly, in every game.

Quote:
Did he go down intentionally or did he just trip?


That's usually obvious.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:23 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


In other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.


Obviously the difference in that play was that Nelson wasn't going to the ground to make the catch. He caught the ball, had both feet down, possession of the ball and then the defender knocked it out of his hands so it should be a td. Now if he had been going to the ground while making the catch, then it's an entirely different story and it would not have been a catch.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:23 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
I didnt think it was a td either but the endzone is different then the field of play in how long you need to possess it, as is the fact that he wasnt going to the ground.

Right, you who absolves the Patriots of never winning a SB without a cheating scandal claim Rodgers was 'Cheating' trying to take advantage of a rule, its his choice to dive or slide if he wants, he isnt responsible for what the opposing players do.


:roll:

It's as if you don't even comprehend the discussion.

The "cheating" occurred when intentionally going to the ground, waiting, and then trying to advance the ball. That's not taking advantage of a rule. that's breaking one. It's not the same thing.


Its pretty clear he was 'Trying' to pop up in time to still advance the ball, the fact that he failed at doing so hardly constitutes 'Cheating', in fact, it doesnt even help the Packers because it gets blown down.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:24 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Jordysghost wrote:
Which part of the sentence isnt true? Im curious why you think Rodgers responsible for the Defense.


He's not.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:24 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:

Not yet, the injuries might be too much but we are two games out, play both the Vikes and Lions once again yet, and they play each other once to go.

speaking figuratively i was


I hear you, but I think its more then just a statistical possibility at this point, but again, the injuries to the secondary are just getting overwhelming.

of course you do because you are a packer fan and there is a certain amount of emotionally fixed deniability that comes with being a fan....but to an outsider who can just look at it from an analytical perspective,the past 4 games have been the worst defensive performance since before the lombardi era. the injuries are still piling up.

if the vikes hadn't pulled Bradford outta their azzes...they'd be in the exact same boat on the other side of the ball.

packers fans believe that with rodgers, they always have a chance. which is true to a point, just not when they have to score 40+ to win.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:27 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.


In other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.



I agree. Even Jordy knew that it wasn't a TD, you could see by the way he reacted.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:27 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:
Quote:
Did he go down intentionally or did he just trip?


That's usually obvious.

right? what am i missing here? unless the dive is just to gain a first down or td...dude is down


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:29 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
I didnt think it was a td either but the endzone is different then the field of play in how long you need to possess it, as is the fact that he wasnt going to the ground.

Right, you who absolves the Patriots of never winning a SB without a cheating scandal claim Rodgers was 'Cheating' trying to take advantage of a rule, its his choice to dive or slide if he wants, he isnt responsible for what the opposing players do.


:roll:

It's as if you don't even comprehend the discussion.

The "cheating" occurred when intentionally going to the ground, waiting, and then trying to advance the ball. That's not taking advantage of a rule. that's breaking one. It's not the same thing.


Maybe they didn't blow the whistle right away and he thought the play was still live. He wasn't really "cheating", they didn't allow him to advance the ball. Can't blame a guy for trying - can you? :confused:


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:29 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
i don't think he's cheating really.

but he is setting himself up to being hit. the way bradford got popped by peterson...only harder.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:31 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Mothman wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:
to disagree. Now you are requiring the refs to make a judgement call.


:wallbang: Yes, which they're required to do constantly, in every game.

Quote:
Did he go down intentionally or did he just trip?


That's usually obvious.


Key word there is 'usually'. I'm all in favor of removing any judgement calls that they can. Guess I should have said it requires the refs to make 'another' judgement call.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:32 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Maybe they didn't blow the whistle right away and he thought the play was still live. He wasn't really "cheating", they didn't allow him to advance the ball. Can't blame a guy for trying - can you? :confused:


Fine. He was trying to "gently bend the rules" to gain an advantage...

... or whatever else will end this discussion. :)


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:47 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
right? what am i missing here? unless the dive is just to gain a first down or td...dude is down


Not according to the rule book - that is just your personal opinion.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:49 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Nunin wrote:
right? what am i missing here? unless the dive is just to gain a first down or td...dude is down


Not according to the rule book - that is just your personal opinion.

the rule speaks directly to intent. there is no other way to interpet it. so, when a qb dives to the ground before taking a hit so that he doesn't have to take a hit his intent is to be down without contact....giving himself up.
-
the only reason the head first vs feet first rule is there is because RBs and WRs will sometimes dive to gain yards...NOT to surrender. so they need to be downed by contact.
the feet first rule was put in to protect QBs from getting hurt as well as where to mark the ball when sliding on a wet field....but a qb sliding vs a qb diving is the same exact thing in terms of what the QB's intent is.....'i surrender'
To try to say it's within the spirit of the rule to deek the defenders the way it's being suggested is unfair and unsportsmanlike.
if it ever happens it will happen one time...and following that every QB who dives will experience contact.
-
you can have the last word


Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.