Toggle sidebar

OT: Philadelphia Eagles (NFL): When You're Up, It's Never As Good As It Seems, And When You're Down, You Never Think You'll Be Up Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hollywood Cannon said:
Who is being stubborn here? A guy committed a blatant penalty and it was called. Not calling that penalty would insert the refs into the game even more than they already were by calling the penalty (and not calling others). It wouldn't get any more blatant.
Click to expand...
whoa, thats not what we are talking about. You said " the penalty did not decide the game" Is that the stance you are sticking with?
 
Jtown said:
Beef, you can call a wide variety of subjective calls throughout a football game. it can be argued holding or offensive pass interference could be called on 50 percent of passing plays. So yes that was a penalty. but it was a penalty that did not allow for any further plays. To lose a game on a subjective call is basically a ref deciding a game, and the other side of the coin was to allow two equally competitive teams play out the rest of this game in overtime. Which would allow for the players to have more say in who wins the game and hence give more satisfaction to consumers.

As a viewer of sports all you want is for the players to decide the game. I am ok with the blackhawks winning the stanley cup. They were better than the flyers. If i was a bengals fan I would not be ok with losing to the chiefs last night.
Click to expand...

You're picking the wrong call to go to town on. Seems to me you're just mad the Eagles arent facing an easier opponent, really. By wanting them to let a really blatant out of bounds hit go, you're signalling that you do want refs to interfere in the outcome, but only in a way that benefits your team.
 
A subjective call? Lol. f*** out of here with that crap.

Once again, a ref not calling a penalty there is deciding a game more than calling a penalty there.

Do you know who "decided the game"? Joseph Ossai, not the ref. The refs were horrible but this wasn't one of them.

Jtown said:
whoa, thats not what we are talking about. You said " the penalty did not decide the game" Is that the stance you are sticking with?
Click to expand...

And yes, that's still the stance i'm sticking with because sports aren't nearly that simplistic. You're arguing exactly what you say we're not talking about though.
 
Beef Invictus said:
You're picking the wrong call to go to town on. Seems to me you're just mad the Eagles arent facing an easier opponent, really. By wanting them to let a really blatant out of bounds hit go, you're signalling that you do want refs to interfere in the outcome, but only in a way that benefits your team.
Click to expand...
I want the chiefs. No way did i want the bengals.
 
Beef Invictus said:
You're picking the wrong call to go to town on. Seems to me you're just mad the Eagles arent facing an easier opponent, really. By wanting them to let a really blatant out of bounds hit go, you're signalling that you do want refs to interfere in the outcome, but only in a way that benefits your team.
Click to expand...

Speaking words of wisdom
Let it Beef
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: Amorgus, BiggE and Beef Invictus
Jtown said:
Beef, you can call a wide variety of subjective calls throughout a football game. it can be argued holding or offensive pass interference could be called on 50 percent of passing plays. So yes that was a penalty. but it was a penalty that did not allow for any further plays. To lose a game on a subjective call is basically a ref deciding a game, and the other side of the coin was to allow two equally competitive teams play out the rest of this game in overtime. Which would allow for the players to have more say in who wins the game and hence give more satisfaction to consumers.

As a viewer of sports all you want is for the players to decide the game. I am ok with the blackhawks winning the stanley cup. They were better than the flyers. If i was a bengals fan I would not be ok with losing to the chiefs last night.
Click to expand...

It's not a subjective call. This isn't Holding. This isn't PI.

NFL Rulebook said:

ARTICLE 8. UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS​

There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:

  1. using the foot or any part of the leg to strike an opponent with a whipping motion (leg whip);
  2. forcibly contacting a runner when he is out of bounds;
    Note: Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a boundary line and continue parallel with it.
Click to expand...


Unless you're trying to argue that it's reasonable that Mahomes was trying to stay in bounds, there is no grey area. There is no room for interpretation. It can even be a stupid rule you want changed and I won't argue, but it is the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hollywood Cannon and achdumeingute
Sorry to be that guy, but I won't back-read 26 pages here... :laugh:

Are we happy about the matchup? Would we have preferred the Bengals?

I'm not sure what to think, I could make the case for both...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom