The Nation's Tears: Volume II

Status
Not open for further replies.

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
449
I wasn't a big fan of the fade to Gronk against Seattle last year on 4th down, but I think it worked last night in part because of the slant on the earlier 4th down conversion, coupled with Gronk's slightest fake to the slant at the snap. That, and Davis is no Kam Chancellor.
 
Aug 20, 2017
2,085
Portland
I love how Romo says the Pats will run the ball on 1st down to get the Steelers to use their last time out. Then after the touchdown, he says that it was a perfect play call because they were playing the pass.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
The league has to do better with this rule. This was an obvious call and I saw it straight away but I hate this rule. Surviving the ground is bullshit. The dude had the ball with a knee down. I'm way happier to make the rule be a catch doesnt have to survive the ground and ground cannot cause a fumble. Will controversial things happen? Sure, but I hate this current rule.
If they can come up with a better rule that's fine.

In the meantime, one thing that would be helpful is if coaches explained the rule to their players so the players made sure to:

a) secure the ball really tightly if they are falling out of bounds;
b) twist their body so as to not let the ball touch the ground if they are falling inbounds OR hold the ball super super tightly if they can't avoid having the ball touch the ground;
c) don't be cute and reach for the first down marker or the end zone or lunge for an extra yard if doing so will add any risk to completely securing the ball through the completion of the catch;
d) maintain the same general principles if you are considering reaching for the pylon or the end zone as a runner;
e) understand that it is not true that "nobody knows what a catch is," there are particular rules that you should follow;
f) just generally not goof around with the ball in any way shape or form until they have completed a legal catch.

By "explain" I mean drum it in their heads. Some teams probably do this, of course and a lot of this shit is on the players.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,694
Bow, NH
What snowmanny said. Plus this:
How many players do you see run with the ball in one hand, even "palming" it like a basketball? I see it all the time, and it is infuriating. Piss poor ball security.
But...how many times do you see a Patriots player do that? Sure, it happens, but I don't see it nearly as frequently as other teams players.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Stopping Gronk is impossible but I think it was just played (and probably coached) poorly overall. The safety is too deep. He isn't getting there to stop a slant on the goal line or a yard deep in the end zone. From a scheme perspective, the CB definitely should be playing with outside leverage and funneling him into the middle assuming safety help is there.

Knowing the Patriots' tendencies, its hard to think what play might have developed out of that formation that the deep safety could have helped prevent.
Yeah that safety was way too deep, he needed to be much closer to be any help. Gronk could have probably gotten the two points running a slant as well.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Thomas Davis, who has a prior history, got hit with 2 games for his head shot today.

Who wants to guess how that’s going over? For those who enjoy the angst of bitter fanbases, there’s plenty to drink up.
 
Last edited:

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Geez I totally forgot about him too. They're down their best two linebackers, two of their best three receivers, and one of their best DTs. Not to mention an all pro right tackle and even his backup.

Steelers can't complain about the injuries.
McClellin is in their top 4 LBs as well.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Thomas Davis, who has a prior history, got hit with 2 games for his head shot today.

Who wants to guess how that’s going over? For those who enjoy the angst of bitter fanbases, there’s plenty to drink up.
I swear most of the country is on stupid pills
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Ed Bouchette, a respected NFL writer from Pittsburgh.

"Contrary to popular belief throughout New England, the Patriots do have influence in the offices of the NFL.

His name is Alberto Riveron, and he is the NFL’s senior vice president of officiating.

Whether you agree (Patriots fans) with his call Sunday night robbing Jesse James of a touchdown or not (Steelers fans), Riveron has helped decide three victories for New England just this season.

This is not to accuse Riveron, in his first season on the job, of favoritism toward the Patriots, but here are the facts:

• New England’s Brandin Cooks caught a 25-yard touchdown pass with 23 seconds left to beat Houston 36-33 on Sept. 24. He caught the ball with both feet in the end zone but lost control as he hit the ground out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and Riveron did not overturn it upon review.

An NFL source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Cooks’ catch remained a touchdown because there was no good video angle that showed him losing control of the ball when he hit the ground.

• New York Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins caught a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots, and fumbled through the back of the end zone once he crossed the line. It was ruled a touchdown on the field. Riveron overturned it. The Patriots got the ball at the 20. New England went on to win 24-17 on Oct 15.

• Then, Sunday night Jesse James caught a pass from Ben Roethlisberger over the middle, was never touched as his knee hit the ground, stretched the ball over the goal line and only then seemed to lose control of it. Riveron overturned the score, putting the ball back at the 10. New England won, 27-24.

The Jets and the Steelers were incensed by Riveron taking the touchdowns away. Both believe their receivers made “football moves” — a factor in the rule — before losing control of the ball. In addition, many Steelers do not believe there was enough evidence that James even did lose control to overturn it, as the replay rules require.

Of course, if both Seferian-Jenkins and James had clearly held on, Riveron would not have had to overturn those two calls."

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2017/12/18/alberto-riveron-nfl-senior-vice-president-of-officiating-patriots-calls-jesse-james/stories/201712180138
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Ed Bouchette, a respected NFL writer from Pittsburgh.

"Contrary to popular belief throughout New England, the Patriots do have influence in the offices of the NFL.

His name is Alberto Riveron, and he is the NFL’s senior vice president of officiating.

Whether you agree (Patriots fans) with his call Sunday night robbing Jesse James of a touchdown or not (Steelers fans), Riveron has helped decide three victories for New England just this season.

This is not to accuse Riveron, in his first season on the job, of favoritism toward the Patriots, but here are the facts:

• New England’s Brandin Cooks caught a 25-yard touchdown pass with 23 seconds left to beat Houston 36-33 on Sept. 24. He caught the ball with both feet in the end zone but lost control as he hit the ground out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and Riveron did not overturn it upon review.

An NFL source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Cooks’ catch remained a touchdown because there was no good video angle that showed him losing control of the ball when he hit the ground.

• New York Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins caught a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots, and fumbled through the back of the end zone once he crossed the line. It was ruled a touchdown on the field. Riveron overturned it. The Patriots got the ball at the 20. New England went on to win 24-17 on Oct 15.

• Then, Sunday night Jesse James caught a pass from Ben Roethlisberger over the middle, was never touched as his knee hit the ground, stretched the ball over the goal line and only then seemed to lose control of it. Riveron overturned the score, putting the ball back at the 10. New England won, 27-24.

The Jets and the Steelers were incensed by Riveron taking the touchdowns away. Both believe their receivers made “football moves” — a factor in the rule — before losing control of the ball. In addition, many Steelers do not believe there was enough evidence that James even did lose control to overturn it, as the replay rules require.

Of course, if both Seferian-Jenkins and James had clearly held on, Riveron would not have had to overturn those two calls."

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2017/12/18/alberto-riveron-nfl-senior-vice-president-of-officiating-patriots-calls-jesse-james/stories/201712180138
Holy shit. That whole city is broken.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
NSFW. Language.

I don't mind the other guy being alone in his house. There are lots of perfectly normal explanations for that.

THIS guy is pathetic and downright scary. It actually made me cringe as a fellow member of the human race. They laugh at the gigantic mess he made, but it's not funny at all. He is no more invested in his team than any fanatic on this message board. He just has no self control.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Ed Bouchette, a respected NFL writer from Pittsburgh.

"Contrary to popular belief throughout New England, the Patriots do have influence in the offices of the NFL.

His name is Alberto Riveron, and he is the NFL’s senior vice president of officiating.

Whether you agree (Patriots fans) with his call Sunday night robbing Jesse James of a touchdown or not (Steelers fans), Riveron has helped decide three victories for New England just this season.

This is not to accuse Riveron, in his first season on the job, of favoritism toward the Patriots, but here are the facts:

• New England’s Brandin Cooks caught a 25-yard touchdown pass with 23 seconds left to beat Houston 36-33 on Sept. 24. He caught the ball with both feet in the end zone but lost control as he hit the ground out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and Riveron did not overturn it upon review.

An NFL source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Cooks’ catch remained a touchdown because there was no good video angle that showed him losing control of the ball when he hit the ground.

• New York Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins caught a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots, and fumbled through the back of the end zone once he crossed the line. It was ruled a touchdown on the field. Riveron overturned it. The Patriots got the ball at the 20. New England went on to win 24-17 on Oct 15.

• Then, Sunday night Jesse James caught a pass from Ben Roethlisberger over the middle, was never touched as his knee hit the ground, stretched the ball over the goal line and only then seemed to lose control of it. Riveron overturned the score, putting the ball back at the 10. New England won, 27-24.

The Jets and the Steelers were incensed by Riveron taking the touchdowns away. Both believe their receivers made “football moves” — a factor in the rule — before losing control of the ball. In addition, many Steelers do not believe there was enough evidence that James even did lose control to overturn it, as the replay rules require.

Of course, if both Seferian-Jenkins and James had clearly held on, Riveron would not have had to overturn those two calls."

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2017/12/18/alberto-riveron-nfl-senior-vice-president-of-officiating-patriots-calls-jesse-james/stories/201712180138
So, this guy is nuts and the city is a bunch of whiners. That being said, when Cooks fell the ball did hit the ground but I think he was saved because he kind of had it pinned to his chest and it didn't really move (at least on the replays I saw) so there was no way to overturn the call. I wonder if it would have been overturned into a touchdown if it had been called incomplete. But I never saw a replay where he "lost control" as Couchette says as if that is a irrefutable fact. I remember worrying it would be overturned but you couldn't see the ball move in the same way as the ball moves during the James play. There was a similar play in the SNF game last night where the ball touched the ground during the catch but there was no angle that showed it moving out of the hand so the catch stood. It's not all exactly fair but that's how the calls go.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
Yeah, he also kinda screws up a key detail: Seferian-Jenkins fumbled through the back of the end zone "once he crossed the [goal] line". I'd think the difference between that and "just before he crossed the goal line" is pretty significant, rules-wise.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
I was trading emails with a friend who's a Pittsburgh fan and the Jenkin's fumble came up. I've included below the best explanation I found for why it was ruled so. At least it shut up my friend.



PLAYER POSSESSION

>Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3).

>To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

Unfortunately, (Jenkins) has to regain IN BOUNDS. so even if he reestablishes the fact that the ball is in his hands, it doesn't matter unless he touches the ground in some way. But he doesn't, the next thing that he hits is the pylon, which is out of bounds.

No one is arguing that he didn't regrab the ball, it's that he didn't, by rule, reestablish possesion in bounds, which requires him to touch the playing surface prior to the pylon.

The "firm grip" is what everyone (including the announcers) is arguing and aghast about, but it's only half the call. And it doesn't matter if he doesn't fulfill the "in bounds" part. "Firm grip" and "in bounds" is the definition of possession by the rule book. (Jenkins) didn't meet that.


Edit: bolded and italics
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Yeah, there is nothing in the rules anymore about a “football move.” A receiver becomes a runner only when:

after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps
So regardless of anything else James was definitely NOT a runner. And the rule is obviously irrelevant for the Jets play since Sefarian-Jenkins WAS a runner, otherwise it wouldn’t have been a fumble through the end zone.

People are either too lazy/stupid to bother even glancing at/trying to understand the actual rule or willfully ignoring it when the call doesn’t go their way.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.
I mean it sounds good, but James was fully airborne when the ball first hit his hands. He hit the ground and the ball popped loose. I could buy it if he had a foot down when he first "caught" it, but that wasn't the case.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,694
Bow, NH
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.
How did that person define the bolded?
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,617
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.

Is the person making a philosophical argument or a rules interpretation? The argument is wrong by rule and obviously so. In principal, I favor this argument over the current rule.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.
That was Max Kellerman’s take so...
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.
Your first problem is assuming the bolded is correct. If this mythical fan mentions "football move", he should instantly lose all credibility until you both take 5 minutes and google "nfl rulebook" and search for the section that defines a catch.

Anyway, the passage from the NFL rulebook is quite clear on this:

A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.
If he can claim that James was capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, or tucking the ball away, or turning up field, or taking additional steps, then the bolded statement is clearly incorrect.
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
6,930
Displaced
Has anyone else hear this theory?

An otherwise intelligent Giants fan claims that James had enough possession that he converted into a runner and therefore when he crossed the goal line should have had the status of a runner and thereby the ruling should have been that he scored immediately, regardless of the subsequent bobble.
Brian Billick was making the same ignorant-of-the-rule claim this AM on Sirius-XM. He also added in some dog whistle “New York City lawyers” ruining the game and a you only need common sense not a law degree to see that it was a catch (paraphrase) for good measure.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Brian Billick was making the same ignorant-of-the-rule claim this AM on Sirius-XM. He also added in some dog whistle “New York City lawyers” ruining the game and a you only need common sense not a law degree to see that it was a catch (paraphrase) for good measure.
I don't doubt that Belichick is a smart person. But whenever I read the above, I walk away convinced that part of the reason for Belichick's success is that 90% of NFL coaches are really, really dumb.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,528
In the simulacrum
The idea that he became a runner is laughable. I, myself, prefer to run with my feet, but maybe James is fond of the outside of his knees. Professional athletes really are different!

More to the point, being a runner would appear to suggest that your feet are the primary point of load bearing on the ground, otherwise all those other fancy things associated with running become impossible.

His right foot is pushing off in the act of the ball hitting his hands. That is his last running move, clearly before the catch is established. Thereafter he is flailing (gracefully and with charming Pittsburgh athleticism and all, but flailing none the less).

I am on the general side of those people who feel like the rule is sort of awful because it creates a disconnect between what seems like a catch and what is a catch, but to claim that within the rules this is a bad call is just wishful thinking.





Screenshot 2017-12-19 10.00.57.pngScreenshot 2017-12-19 10.01.19.pngScreenshot 2017-12-19 10.01.41.png
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Ed Bouchette, a respected NFL writer from Pittsburgh.

"Contrary to popular belief throughout New England, the Patriots do have influence in the offices of the NFL.

His name is Alberto Riveron, and he is the NFL’s senior vice president of officiating.

Whether you agree (Patriots fans) with his call Sunday night robbing Jesse James of a touchdown or not (Steelers fans), Riveron has helped decide three victories for New England just this season.

This is not to accuse Riveron, in his first season on the job, of favoritism toward the Patriots, but here are the facts:

• New England’s Brandin Cooks caught a 25-yard touchdown pass with 23 seconds left to beat Houston 36-33 on Sept. 24. He caught the ball with both feet in the end zone but lost control as he hit the ground out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and Riveron did not overturn it upon review.

An NFL source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Cooks’ catch remained a touchdown because there was no good video angle that showed him losing control of the ball when he hit the ground.

• New York Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins caught a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots, and fumbled through the back of the end zone once he crossed the line. It was ruled a touchdown on the field. Riveron overturned it. The Patriots got the ball at the 20. New England went on to win 24-17 on Oct 15.

• Then, Sunday night Jesse James caught a pass from Ben Roethlisberger over the middle, was never touched as his knee hit the ground, stretched the ball over the goal line and only then seemed to lose control of it. Riveron overturned the score, putting the ball back at the 10. New England won, 27-24.

The Jets and the Steelers were incensed by Riveron taking the touchdowns away. Both believe their receivers made “football moves” — a factor in the rule — before losing control of the ball. In addition, many Steelers do not believe there was enough evidence that James even did lose control to overturn it, as the replay rules require.

Of course, if both Seferian-Jenkins and James had clearly held on, Riveron would not have had to overturn those two calls."

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2017/12/18/alberto-riveron-nfl-senior-vice-president-of-officiating-patriots-calls-jesse-james/stories/201712180138
I'm not clicking on that, but what's his reason for Riveron's supposed bias? Is he from New England or was he formerly associated with the team?
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,528
In the simulacrum
Because the NFL has a history of changing rules after the Pats have benefitted from the current rules, I look forward to the catch rule at the goal line going through a change this spring.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
I'm not clicking on that, but what's his reason for Riveron's supposed bias? Is he from New England or was he formerly associated with the team?
Get with the program. The reason for his bias is evident from all the biased calls he made.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,103
I'm not clicking on that, but what's his reason for Riveron's supposed bias? Is he from New England or was he formerly associated with the team?
He has nothing, other than he doesn't like how a few calls have gone the Patriots way. No support with the supposed "influence" the Patriots have.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
I mean, essentially what he's saying is that it would have been more fair to rule as catches the 2 plays where HE FUCKING ADMITS the player didn't hold onto the ball.

Okay tool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.