So the NFL's game of the year boiled down to autistically debating a "catch"?
| buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 12/18/17 | | High-end Senate | 12/18/17 | | sadistic set patrolman | 12/18/17 | | buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 12/18/17 | | Peach meetinghouse indirect expression | 12/18/17 | | sadistic set patrolman | 12/18/17 | | Peach meetinghouse indirect expression | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | sadistic set patrolman | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 12/18/17 | | gold hospital | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 02/04/18 | | transparent insanely creepy range | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 02/04/18 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | sadistic set patrolman | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | gold hospital | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/18/17 | | Pearly center foreskin | 12/25/17 | | Indecent Cumskin Marketing Idea | 02/04/18 | | Brilliant rambunctious point yarmulke | 12/18/17 | | buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 12/18/17 | | Pale Scourge Upon The Earth Step-uncle's House | 12/18/17 | | Cocky abusive space quadroon | 12/18/17 | | buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 12/18/17 | | Talented principal's office | 12/18/17 | | fiercely-loyal crystalline forum dingle berry | 12/18/17 | | Green nofapping heaven | 02/04/18 | | hilarious kitchen cuckoldry | 02/04/18 | | Bearded legal warrant | 02/04/18 | | Pearly center foreskin | 02/04/18 | | buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 03/01/18 | | Slap-happy dilemma weed whacker | 02/04/18 | | buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish | 03/01/18 | | Silver skinny woman dopamine | 03/01/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 3:03 PM Author: Pearly center foreskin
I legit don't know,
Is that the governing factor? The referee determining whether a player is balanced or not?
Either way, its a dumb rule, because clearly he had the ball in his possession, enough to lung and stretch it out.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#34950064) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 3:05 PM Author: buck-toothed ebony multi-billionaire death wish
>> Either way, its a dumb rule, because clearly he had the ball in his possession, enough to lunge and stretch it out. <<
Speaking as a non-fan with no dog in this hunt, that video above intuitively seems like he caught the ball. Like, if you ask a child "did that guy catch the ball" they'd all say yes.
But of course whether it's a catch or not isn't the point.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#34950086) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 3:07 PM Author: Pearly center foreskin
just to be autistic...
if he's falling backward, the ball is on his chest, he hits the ground, the ball pops up, out of his possession, doesn't hit the ground, he re-catches
good catch right?
if he has the ball, in his possession the whole time, falls to the ground, ball touches the ground, clearly doesn't move, clearly maintains possession the whole time
still a good catch right?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#34950107) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 3:15 PM Author: Pearly center foreskin
do you have to see the ball actually touching the grass when it moves? It obviously moves due to him falling, by the time you see it touching the grass, it appears to be back in 'dispute' as to whether he has control over it
I agree that physics renders this unlikely
but that seems like a standard that isn't uniformly applied to exactly how indisputable what you're looking at has to be
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#34950203) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 3:08 PM Author: Pearly center foreskin
the reason I'm getting autistic with this, is that I've seen calls that seem to meet a different standard of what exactly you need to see
I think it usually happens around fumble calls, where the question is whether the knee was down
due to piles of bodies, you don't get an exact view of the knee, but the hip will move such that the knee not hitting the ground would defy physics,
yet the call goes as call on the field stands because video evidence is inconclusive
-----
I think I've seen similar situation when reviewing whether or not a punt was touched, the ball will move in a way that defies physics, but the video evidence will be determined as inconclusive
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#34950115) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2017 2:31 PM Author: Pearly center foreskin
After the Benjamin score was overturned, many immediately blamed the NFL’s famously broken catch rule. But in a strange twist, the catch rule was not the problem here. The question here was whether both of Benjamin’s feet touched down in the end zone when he gained control of the ball. Having both feet down with possession is the purest definition of a catch, the one we all understood before things got extremely complicated.
The problem here was not with the rule, but with the way the NFL’s replay system operates. The on-field officials ruled that Benjamin got both feet down. Slow-motion replays raised the question of whether Benjamin’s second foot left the ground before he gained control, but there was no angle that definitively proved Benjamin didn’t have control when his foot left the ground.
The NFL is only supposed to overturn calls if there is “clear and obvious” video evidence that the on-field decision was wrong. If the video is inconclusive—or really, anything less than “clear and obvious”—the call on the field should stand. But between the Seferian-Jenkins overturn and this one, it’s now clear and obvious that the league’s replay office does not adhere to that standard.
The league’s replay system is meant to correct officiating errors by on-field officials. Instead, the league office is using challenges as an opportunity to freshly officiate the plays from New York. That takes a lot of agency away from the league’s referees. This is, of course, quite upsetting to officiating experts:
...
Leagues are right to use instant replay to ensure accuracy. But when slow-motion, high-definition replays from a variety of angles don’t definitively tell us what happened on a play, there is no right or wrong answer. And in those cases, there won’t be a better solution than trusting the refs.
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/12/24/16817224/week-16-winners-and-losers-replay-officials-butt-interception-browns
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#35004410) |
Date: December 18th, 2017 2:50 PM Author: Brilliant rambunctious point yarmulke
the NFL is done, dude
if you're a heterosexual male still watching the NFL you are a very confused individual
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#34949953) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2018 10:08 PM Author: Pearly center foreskin
The Steelers would have been the #1 seed
Jags would have played the Pats in the divisional round
This sport is ridiculous
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3833092&forum_id=2#35324709) |
|
|