Shaw66

The thing about this is that a message board is a community, and the community has a personality. The personality changes over time as the population changes. Posters tend to come and go, and the mix of people, opinions and personalities change. So life on the message board changes, and the actual personality and appeal of the place changes. The personality is controlled somewhat by moderation, because the mods shape how people behave based on the rules they write and how they enforce those rules. Beyond that, the quality of the moderation depends on the leadership the mods get. Here, as I understand it, there's essentially one owner and senior moderator, and he runs it the way he wants. You can like how he does it or not, and you can have opinions about how he does it, but one thing is certain - you get consistency. He may change the rules over time as issues arise, but his personal philosophy of what this place ought to look like is consistent. The result is that posters learn over time what is permissible behavior and what isn't. The rules don't change. At BBMB you didn't have that. As I understand it, Wyo wrote the CofC at the request of the Bills. I guess the Bills didn't like how things were going in the early 2000s and they came to Wyo and maybe a couple of other people who either were mods then or informal leaders and told them generally what they wanted. Then Wyo wrote the CofC, largely to capture the Bills' concerns. That was in 2003 or 4 or 5. Other than a little tinkering here or there, the CofC didn't change after that. However, the mods changed. If there weren't enough mods to cover the various forums, some senior mods would ask a veteran posted if he or she wanted to be a mod. If the answer was yes, then they'd recommend to the Bills that that person get mod authority, and the Bills did it. The Bills didn't know who these people were they were appointing, and the Bills didn't give them any training or guidance. The mods were on their own. The result of this was that over time you had people becoming mods who interpreted the CofC however they wanted, and no one was supervising them. The Bills certainly weren't paying attention, and there was no senior mod who was shaping enforcement policy. Mods didn't overrule each other. So moderation became really inconsistent; I let lots of stuff go, and other mods hammered people for silly little things that were pointless. They had their reasons, some of which made sense even if their enforcement didn't. And worst of all, the Bills didn't stand behind the mods. The Bills wouldn't give the mods power to block addresses, so bad actors who got banned would come back, literally in minutes, with a new screen name. They could register with bogus email addresses. Mods were chasing bad guys all day long. The consequence was that there was no consistency in who was posting or how the place was being run. It was chaotic. And in that environment, some mods became, in my mind, arbitrary and dogmatic. They created operating rules in their heads that guided them, and from the posters' point of view it was unfair. For some people it WAS unfair. But most people went there from day to day, talked about the Bills, had a little fun and left. That's why so many people went there for so long.

We lost a lot of knowledgeable posters who didn't move here when BBMB shut down. WhateverHappenedtoLarry, who was a Falcons fan, posted often at BBMB because he said it was the best football discussion he found anywhere. The guy really knew his stuff, and he knew the Bills, too. And people complain about JM2009. I used to argue with him a lot, and he'd make me angry occasionally, but he knew his stuff, too. Really good insights, and he could back up what he thought with good data. Problem at BBMB was that you had to be willing to put up with a lot of BS while you were there, so over time some good posters left. One thing that was really useful about BBMB was that for whatever reason some people thought it was cool to be the first person to post news about the Bills. The result was that BBMB was the best place to go for news about the Bills. It didn't matter where the news broke first - ESPN, NFL.com, one of the networks, Buffalo News, Twitter - wherever it broke first, it showed up almost immediately on BBMB. I never looked anywhere else for news. Personally, I never understood why it mattered to be first to BBMB with the news, but enough people cared about it that it was a very useful news source.

Well, yes and know. Frankly, I think BBMB had better football discussions in its best threads, and it was much worse than here in its worst threads. There are a lot fewer jerks here. I suspect that's because the owner and mods here have the ability to ban the bad actors and keep them off. It's nice to have a place to talk with serious fans.

They do agree about Saints Raiders Titans. But you have to wonfer about the quality of ratings when the Bills are at the tip of one list and the bottom of another. It's all based on amateurs evaluating film. That's a joke.

This points out the problem with stats generated by people other than the pro football professionals. Pretty obvious to me that your rating on this list is NOT a measure of offensive line play. It's a measure of something that is related to having a mobile quarterback. Taylor, Brees, Carr, Mariota are all on the top of this list.

I don't think his head going back that far is a "natural response." His entired torso had to move, and since he was lying top of other players he didn't have his legs under him to push himself back. And why would he be pushing himself back, anyway. He was pulled back at exactly the right time; split second sooner and his arms don't get out there, split second later and he would have pulled the ball back first, in which case his forward progress would have been behind the line to gain. Patriots luck.

Fair enough. I'll give you that at least they were supposed to have spotted and measured. But I think it was pretty clear the ball had gotten to the line to gain. Yes, but somebody had to be in position and had to react very quickly. The ball wasn't out there very long.

Turns out I was wrong about this. In the 4th and 1 thread there's a video from the sideline. It's clear that he reached the ball out to or past the line to gain. It's also clear that just as he got fully extended his helmet starts moving back - it moved back at least a foot. After he started moving back, he bends his elbows, the ball elevates as he's pulling it back to his body. Since the retreat of the ball was caused by a Bill, he gets his forward progress, which is at or over the line to gain. First down.

No, unfortunately it isn't inconclusive. At the instant the ball reached the farthest point, you can see his head going backward and then the ball starting to move backward. You also can see a Bill who looks to be pulling him back. The rule is clear - when he's moved backward by the opponent, he gets his forward progress, and his forward progress was at or over the line to gain. First down.

Now that I look more carefully, I think you're correct. First, it's clear that his elbows bend and he pulls the ball back. But the instant before his elbows bend you can see his helmet moving backward. So I'd have to say that based on the rule, he gets his forward progress, which was the farthest point he reached with the ball. If the Bills hadn't pulled him back, he wouldn't get his forward progress.

You know, I really don't buy all this NE conspiracy stuff, but I will admit that the evidence keeps piling up. It's POSSIBLE that the whistle blew or his knee touched or he was pulled back at the EXACT instant that the ball carrier reached full extension of the ball, but I don't see how anyone could know any of that from the replays. I really believe they forgot that breaking the plane doesn't apply in this case. But I also believe the people reviewing the play also assume the Patriots will make the play they need, so when they saw the ball touch the plane, they immediately thought "there you go, the Patriots did it again!" and forgot to think about what the rule actually is.

Here's something I wrote in the thread about the Benjamin catch, because a discussion broke out there about the 4th and 1. The rules are clear. You don't get forward progress when you're the one who moves the ball backward. Here's what I wrote there: Here are some things from the NFL rules: "A Running Play ends: (a) When the ball is declared dead; (b) When a runner loses or relinquishes possession by a Fumble or a backward pass; or (c) When a player of either team throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage or when there is not a line of scrimmage. "(d) The Dead Ball Spot: The spot at which the ball became dead." "FORWARD PROGRESS. The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent." (note that this rule could be written more clearly, but we know what it means - the offense gets the benefit of forward progress if the defense pushes the ball carrier back, but the offense DOES NOT get the benefit of forward progress if the offense retreats from the forward progress point. Otherwise every time a ball carrier gave up yards the ball would be declared dead and he couldn't advance it. ) "A Down is a period of action that starts when the ball is put in play (3-2-3) and ends when the ball is declared dead (7-2-1)." "ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down. (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends." Okay, you have to put all of that together. Fundamentally, the spot of the ball is the place where the ball is where the ball is declared dead. The exception is forward progress, which makes the spot of the ball the farthest forward point to which the ball carrier had moved the ball before the ball carrier is pushed back by the defense. The ball is dead when the runner is down or the ref otherwise declares the ball dead. On the play in question, the ball carrier clearly thrust the ball forward and then pulled it back - he didn't keep his arms extended. So the ball going backward was not caused by the opponent, the Bills, moving it back. Now, I'd have to see it again - it may be possible that the Bills pushed him back some, but most of the movement of the ball backward was caused by the ball carrier, not the Bills. So the question becomes where was the ball when the ball carrier's knee or other part of his body (except feet and hands) touch the ground? Or, if they didn't touch, where was the ball when some official stopped the play. If either of those events happened at the exact instant the ball carrier reached the ball forward, then he gets the spot as far as he extended the ball. But if either of those events happened at any other time, he doesn't get the spot based on the reach. I don't think it was possible in the replay to determine when the knee or some other part of the body was down. I never saw a clear view of that actual touching. So you can't possibly overturn the call on the field by ruling that the knee was down at the exact instant necessary to give the ball carrier the full extension of his reach with the ball. If there isn't conclusive evidence that his knee touched at exactly the right time, you can't overturn the call on the field. If the play ended because the ref blew the whistle at the absolute exact instant when the ball was at its farthest forward point, then the spot is there. I don't recall a replay where you could hear the whistle, but I'm pretty sure the whistle came AFTER the ball had reached out and pulled back. So the play didn't end with the ball at the farthest forward point, it ended later, after the ball carrier had retreated from the farthest point forward, so the ball has to be spotted where the ball was after he pulled it back. Breaking the plane is irrelevant here. Breaking the plane applies only at the goal line, because as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play is over. (The ball is dead "when a touchdown, touchback, safety, field goal, or Try has been made." "A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone.") So the ball is dead when the ball gets to or past the goal line, and the play is over. But in this case the ball isn't dead until the knee is down or the ref says it's dead, and it's almost certain that neither of those things happened at the exact instant when the ball carrier had pushed the ball forward to its farthest point. Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.

I thought he should go for it, but I'm never against taking the points that are available. Hauschka was a good bet. A lot of people here ALWAYS want to go for it. They remind me of my son who used to run the fake punt on Madden every fourth down. There's always a rationale for going for it, but just because you can come up with an argument in favor of going for it doesn't mean that the argument is right. In this case, however, I think the odds suggest that the Bills should have gone for it. I think you have to figure Hauschka was only a 50-50 proposition. Yeah, he made a lot early in the year, but it's tougher in winter weather. I think you have to figure making it is also 50-50, even though the Bills haven't been too successful on fourth down this year. (I think they haven't been successful on several desperation fourth downs, not the typical fourth and 1 in the middle of the game - remember, the Bills generally didn't go for it on those fourth and 1s.) So if you're 50-50 either way, the downside of not making it is the same. The upside, however, is why I think you have to go for it. If you make the field goal, you have three. If you make the first down, presumably you're getting closer to the goal line and the chances you get at least 3 start getting better. And of course your chances of getting 7 go up. But I think it's a closer call than some people think.

Of course it's more complicated. But I'm sure it's a factor. NBA stars get favorable calls - it's almost like the ref is thinking "if it didn't go in, Durant must have been fouled, because he makes them all."

I do have to say this in defense of all the people who make these decisions. There is a clear, and I think natural, bias in favor of the good team over the bad team. There is an assumption in the back of everyone's head that the players on the good teams make the plays and the players on the bad teams don't. So if maybe it's interference, Cooks gets the call and Hyde doesn't. I think it's a natural, unconscious decision. These are the Bills so that pass to Benjamin must have been incomplete. These are the Patriots, so that 4th down play must have been successful. It's another reason why the evidence to overturn a call has to be conclusive.

Here are some things from the NFL rules: "A Running Play ends: (a) When the ball is declared dead; (b) When a runner loses or relinquishes possession by a Fumble or a backward pass; or (c) When a player of either team throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage or when there is not a line of scrimmage. "(d) The Dead Ball Spot: The spot at which the ball became dead." "FORWARD PROGRESS. The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent." (note that this rule could be written more clearly, but we know what it means - the offense gets the benefit of forward progress if the defense pushes the ball carrier back, but the offense DOES NOT get the benefit of forward progress if the offense retreats from the forward progress point.) "A Down is a period of action that starts when the ball is put in play (3-2-3) and ends when the ball is declared dead (7-2-1)." "ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down. (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends." Okay, you have to put all of that together. Fundamentally, the spot of the ball is the place where the ball is where the ball is declared dead. The exception is forward progress, which makes the spot of the ball the farthest forward point to which the ball carrier had moved the ball before the ball carrier is pushed back by the defense. The ball is dead when the runner is down or the ref otherwise declares the ball dead. On the play in question, the ball carrier clearly thrust the ball forward and then pulled it back - he didn't keep his arms extended. So the ball going backward was not caused by the opponent, the Bills, moving it back. Now, I'd have to see it again - it may be possible that the Bills pushed him back some, but most of the movement of the ball backward was caused by the ball carrier, not the Bills. So the question becomes where was the ball when the ball carrier's knee or other part of his body (except feet and hands) touch the ground? Or, if they didn't touch, where was the ball when some official stopped the play. If either of those events happened at the exact instant the ball carrier reached the ball forward, then he gets the spot as far as he extended the ball. But if either of those events happened at any other time, he doesn't get the spot based on the reach. I don't think it was possible in the replay to determine when the knee or some other part of the body was down. I never saw a clear view of that actual touching. So you can't possibly overturn the call on the field by ruling that the knee was down at the exact instant necessary to give the ball carrier the full extension of his reach with the ball. If there isn't conclusive evidence that his knee touched at exactly the right time, you can't overturn the call on the field. If the play ended because the ref blew the whistle at the absolute exact instant when the ball was at its farthest forward point, then the spot is there. I don't recall a replay where you could hear the whistle, but I'm pretty sure the whistle came AFTER the ball had reached out and pulled back. So the play didn't end with the ball at the farthest forward point, it ended later, after the ball carrier had retreated from the farthest point forward, so the ball has to be spotted where the ball was after he pulled it back. Breaking the plane is irrelevant here. Breaking the plane applies only at the goal line, because as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play is over. (The ball is dead "when a touchdown, touchback, safety, field goal, or Try has been made." "A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone.") So the ball is dead when the ball gets to or past the goal line, and the play is over. But in this case the ball isn't dead until the knee is down or the ref says it's dead, and it's almost certain that neither of those things happened at the exact instant when the ball carrier had pushed the ball forward to its farthest point. Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.

Correct. Can't overturn the call on the field either way. And I agree that once they have to look and look and look, it just isn't conclusive enough to overturn.

Correct. The intention of replay is to correct the obvious incorrect call. That was anything but obvious. And the 4th and 1 reversal was worse. There they didn't even know the rules.

For sure.

I saw what you saw, but the right call there was to conclude that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. When he did secure the ball, it still wasn't clear that Benjamin's foot was off the ground. It was really close, and if I had to bet my life I'd say his foot was off the ground. But there was not a clear look that showed conclusively that his foot WAS off the ground, and without clear evidence, they're required to up hold the call on the field.

That's interesting to me, because it's seemed clear for a couple of years now that if the ball carrier is tackled or goes out of bounds where he's in range of the sticks and where the spot is tough to be precise on, they spot so there's a first down. Over and over they do it. I'm sure that they've been told to spot in favor of giving the first down, and I'd suspect it's for the same reason you say they should rule in favor of the big play. Yes, and they're doing everything they can to prop them up. Don't kid yourself - they do a lot of polling, and they know why people are watching or not watching. If whacking the Pats would be good for ratings, you'd see them whacking the Pats. There's a reason Gronk got a only a one-game suspension, and I'd bet the reason is that their polling tells them more people watch when the Pats are winning, and probably also that more people watch when Gronk is playing. The NFL didn't want him off the field.

I know how you feel, but the only thing that matters is the ratings. The NFL knows they aren't going to get everyone to watch. Look at major league baseball. Purists like pitchers duels, but the ratings say fans like home runs. So MLB turned a blind eye to all the drugs and let the home run totals explode. Ratings went up. Then MLB got caught and couldn't fight the publicity, so they had to shut down the drugs. Ratings dropped. So what happened? MLB juiced the baseballs, they hit more home runs in 2017 than any time in history. Ratings went up. Does MLB care about the purists? Yes, but not if the purists are getting in the way of ratings. The NFL is no different. They're in trouble. They're dealing with concussions, violence, kneeling, all sorts of things. If promoting the Pats helps ratings, the NFL definitely is going to do it. And if as a result you think the game is unwatchable, they really don't care, so long as more people like the show they're putting than people like you leave.

Me too. Next season. Bills have taken the next step and Brady is over the hill. I think he clearly looks like he's slipping now, and I'm guessing next season we'll start to see the serious decline. He isn't nearly as accurate as even a year ago, and I think the league is finally catching up to their passing scheme. The Bills showed yesterday that you have to take away Gronk and be smart how to play the rest of their average receivers. If you can do that and have a pass rusher or two who actually hit him, he's becoming beatable. Next season.

Ridiculous.

I think there's a good deal of truth in this. The NFL, like any other successful business, is well tuned into what helps and hurts viewership. I heard someone say once that baseball likes having the Yankees. It makes baseball a long-running morality play, with Goliath always looming. People like that story, and they really like it when some David comes along and knocks them out. Same with the Pats. NFL loved the two Giant wins over the Pats in the Super Bowl, they loved the Pats wins over Atlanta and Seattle. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting if Titans had come from behind to beat Atlanta. The NFL likes having a team on top. And I think they like it even better if the team has a little bit of evil attached to it, which the Pats do. Brady just isn't as likeable as Peyton, Belichick not nearly as likeable as Dungy. So they're easy to dislike a little. The cheating doesn't hurt, either. The league knows what sells and what doesn't. The Pats sell, so the league isn't going out of their way to make it difficult for the Pats.