Flamingbaby

Rhyno wrote:
I'm not going to go to the extreme and say that blown calls are a good thing, but things like the tuck rule can never be forgiven. Let me use an example. Let's not use the Superbowl. I'll even downgrade to an AFC championship game. Let's say your team is protecting a three point lead with the opposing team driving down the field late in the fourth quarter. Let's say that your defense gets to the QB and causes him to fumble the ball away insuring your victory. Let's say that the play was reviewed, and even though it was obvious that the QB had no intention of passing the ball, his arm was moving forward leading to the play on the field being changed from a fumble to an incomplete pass. The opposing team then gets within field goal range to tie the game, wins the coin toss, and drives down the field for the game winning field goal... all because of the tuck rule which exists only because of instant replay. Sound implausible? That's exactly what happened to the Oakland Raiders in the 2001 AFC championship game when the Pats defeated them. In fact, the tuck rule is what helped the Pats start their "dynasty".

Don't get me wrong, I watched that game. And that was complete bullshit. But how is that instant replay's fault more than the stupid rule? And what if the refs had ruled it NOT a fumble initially based on the very same tuck rule? Would it have not been equally stupid? Does the tuck rule only apply to instant replay?

Ahhh... the "covering up of the an illegible receiver" rule. This is also a rule that is supposed to prevent offenses from gaining an unfair advantage over defenses. If this was not a rule, theoretically, you could have any of your offensive linemen become eligible receivers simply by reporting them for every play. To prevent this from happening, the rule is that only the last players "on the line" are eligible receivers. I think it is even a penalty to have the TE report as an eligible receiver and then "cover him up", but I would have to look it up to be sure. I know these types of rules seem stupid, but they really do exist to help keep the game balanced. Otherwise, offenses would have way to much of an advantage over defenses.

Good explanation. I think it still falls under the "rules I dislike" category. Seems like there's always different rules changing the balance of offense/defense around. Like how much contact you can make with a receiver up to a certain point, etc. A similar rule with baseball I found dumb was the extending the strike zone.

Yohnstoppable wrote:Don't get me wrong, I watched that game. And that was complete bullshit. But how is that instant replay's fault more than the stupid rule? And what if the refs had ruled it NOT a fumble initially based on the very same tuck rule? Would it have not been equally stupid? Does the tuck rule only apply to instant replay?It would be a stupid rule no matter what, but the rule exists because of instant replay. Allow me to explain. In the past, the referee made the incomplete pass or fumble call based on his judgment of whether the QB was in the process of throwing a pass. Makes sense, right? Well, in order for this play to be reviewable, the process of a thrown pass had to be clearly defined. The referee cannot make assumptions about the QB's intent in an instant replay review. This would fall under the same category of why passing interference is not reviewable. It is the referee's judgment on whether the defender was interfering, playing the ball, or if there was incidental contact. After all, a play can't be reversed unless there is indisputable, visual evidence. You aren't going to have that evidence in judging intentions. This is what led to the process of a pass being defined (the definition being that the arm is moving forward... whether the QB was going to throw the ball or not doesn't matter... bunch of bullshit) for instant replay so that it could be a reviewable play. This is also why I'm against instant replay. Instant replay has led to one of the stupidest rules in the name of allowing that play to be reviewed... and, in my opinion, the call often is not right since in a great many instances, I don't think the QB was intending to throw the ball even though his arm was moving forward.

The OBVIOUS solution is to attach sensor patches to the players' limbs, other important spots, the entire ball, and beacons at strategic points of the field. Once this is done we just use motion capture technology to do all the reffing for us instantly.

...heh

Rhyno wrote:
Yohnstoppable wrote:Don't get me wrong, I watched that game. And that was complete bullshit. But how is that instant replay's fault more than the stupid rule? And what if the refs had ruled it NOT a fumble initially based on the very same tuck rule? Would it have not been equally stupid? Does the tuck rule only apply to instant replay?It would be a stupid rule no matter what, but the rule exists because of instant replay. Allow me to explain. In the past, the referee made the incomplete pass or fumble call based on his judgment of whether the QB was in the process of throwing a pass. Makes sense, right? Well, in order for this play to be reviewable, the process of a thrown pass had to be clearly defined. The referee cannot make assumptions about the QB's intent in an instant replay review. This would fall under the same category of why passing interference is not reviewable. It is the referee's judgment on whether the defender was interfering, playing the ball, or if there was incidental contact. After all, a play can't be reversed unless there is indisputable, visual evidence. You aren't going to have that evidence in judging intentions. This is what led to the process of a pass being defined (the definition being that the arm is moving forward... whether the QB was going to throw the ball or not doesn't matter... bunch of bullshit) for instant replay so that it could be a reviewable play. This is also why I'm against instant replay. Instant replay has led to one of the stupidest rules in the name of allowing that play to be reviewed... and, in my opinion, the call often is not right since in a great many instances, I don't think the QB was intending to throw the ball even though his arm was moving forward.

So don't make qb throws like that reviewable. Or hell, define it better. You could add distance the ball goes for one. I mean, you can't exactly fumble the ball and have it land 20 yards in front of you. Or hell, just let the referee use his actual judgement, and not overturn a call unless he believes without a doubt that the qb was throwing the ball. I just think the main issue is rules being defined in a stupid manner.

I agree that the rule being brought on by instant replay is stupid. But I also think that's a problem that can be fixed. And I really don't agree with the "human error is part of the game" argument when it can be fixed.

The only way the rule gets "fixed" is when enough bitching and moaning will be made, and the NFL will add yet another rule to the forward motion of the QB, while still having the "tuck" rule in place. That's the reason why instant replay detracts from the game. Every year you have some new rule implemented, and some changed, and some removed completely because every sport is not perfect, and the NFL is trying to do whatever it can to perfect its game. You cannot do that, there is always an exception.

As far as your baseball comment goes, I think its fair to say that Lou Pinella has put a black mark on all baseball fans forever.

Yohnstoppable wrote:So don't make qb throws like that reviewable. Or hell, define it better. You could add distance the ball goes for one. I mean, you can't exactly fumble the ball and have it land 20 yards in front of you. Or hell, just let the referee use his actual judgement, and not overturn a call unless he believes without a doubt that the qb was throwing the ball. I just think the main issue is rules being defined in a stupid manner.I understand what you're saying... I really do. However, precisely defining a forward pass was never an issue until instant replay. Referees' judgment on whether the QB was in the process of throwing a pass was always sufficient. I certainly wouldn't disagree with making that play unreviewable... as long as the tuck rule would go away. I'm not sure how you could sufficiently define the process of a pass in the context of indisputable, visual evidence. If distance the ball traveled were to be a consideration, it might become possible that a five to ten yard shuttle pass would be considered a fumble. As far as using the referee's judgment, that's the whole reason instant replay is being used... to eliminate the referee's judgment in favor of indisputable, visual evidence. If referee's judgment is allowed in reviewing a play, would passing interference calls then become reviewable?

I can honestly say that I would prefer the NFL to do away with instant replay. Mistake calls are much preferable in my opinion than the stupid rules that don't make sense.

Rhyno, not to take this convo. off track, but I got your email from this morning. Any luck w/ your virus??

I think we're just going to have to disagree to agree to disagree that I'm correct on the matter . Anyway, I agree that the rule changes are bad. I just think it could be done better. I personally like instant replay, but I see where you're coming from on the rules, and agree.

Perhaps we'll see a tuck rule in baseball?

"THAT WAS A BALK!"
"Let me review that. Nope, tuck rule!"

I still disagree with it making games more exciting, though.

Trust me Yohn, if the instant replay starts being fully implemented in baseball, the balk will be one of the first rules to undergo changes.

I think some fans would, dare I say, balk at the idea of instant replay?

www.instantrimshot.com

EDIT: This is probably more appropriate for my joke sadtrombone.com/

S3bol@virus wrote:
Rhyno, not to take this convo. off track, but I got your email from this morning. Any luck w/ your virus??I think I was overreacting. I talked to kRabbit over X-Fire. Avast hasn't found anything. The items were only found when I ran Ad-Aware. The files that are supposedly supposed to be created if I have that virus I can't find on my comp anywhere. Task manager doesn't report anymore than the 41 processes that my computer normally runs. My Avast screen saver seems to be running fine now after a reboot. I think I just panicked. As KRabbit said, I should probably trust my Avast over Ad-Aware. It just had me freakin' out since the threat level for win32.backdoor.agent was set at maximum. So, I probably just did a bunch of overdo maintenance anyway... like disk clean-up, disk defrag, emptying the temporary internet folder, and clearing all the private data on Firefox including cookies. I almost got a whole 'nother GB of hard drive space after that. I know... I'm easily excitable.

Back on topic, I will admit that instant replay does have it's advantages... it's disadvantages just annoy me more than the problems instant replay solve. I agree to disagree to agree to disagree that you are correct... I'm not sure I what I just agreed to...