mannc
-
Posts
17,685 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
Yeah...look, you either believe in legal rights applied to everyone equally, or you don't believe in legal rights at all. You're not enlightened because you hate Nazis (most do). More particularly, you are not even remotely enlightened because you want to discriminate against them. The moment you say "These people are more entitled to a job than these other people who's beliefs are disgusting," you are the problem.
Which, when you get down to it, is what Kaepernick's protest was about: the equal right to not get shot based on arbitrary opinions.
Let's try a hypothetical: A group of white supremacist NFL players wants to protest the fact that there are, in their opinion, too many black players in the league by performing some sort of peaceful pre-game demonstration. Do you believe the teams and the league would have the same legal obligation to accommodate such a protest as they do the current protest by certain African-American players? I don't think so.
-
Yes, ourageous hypocrisy, when there are very fine people on both sides.Because you are not entitled to your job no matter what.
Although the true irony is that people who believe Kaepernick is being black-balled for expressing political beliefs on company time also believe that white supremacists should be fired for expressing political beliefs on personal time.
-
Rodgers knew what he was signing up for, but I guess it hurt anyway.
-
Chicken hawk.Well, we know that guys stance...
-
Pozluzny?Two words. J P Losman. Oh wait, that's three words and it didn't work out so well. OK, how about Samuel Watkins? Oh wait, never mind, I give up.
-
Another awesome trade up. Has this franchise ever had a trade up that was not a disaster?
-
-
And the last part of the rule says that if there is any doubt, the official should call roughing the passer. Ergo...The interpretation and explanation of the rule was fairly clear and eloquent. It seems to be a judgement call. The qb retains protections in section 2 regardless if out of pocket. So judgement determines whether those protections were violated (stuffing, etc.). My judgement says yes. Others say no. But I do not think it is clearly one way or the other based on the letter of the rule.
-
Wow, you really are tough.Not at all actually, just proving my point. I played hockey and football my whole life.
-
I did both, and you are.I assure you that I am not wrong. Go re-read the rule. Then re-watch the hit.
-
You're wrong. Go read the rule, which is posted in full up-thread.It was legal. It wasn't late. It was not helmet to helmet. He got hit. He got driven to the ground and he got hurt. You know what that's called? A hit with an unfortunate outcome for the QB. It's part of the game and there was nothing wrong with it.
-
Then what are you doing here?Not true at all on your last point. I live and breathe Bills/NFL. At least I used to. 50% of my clothes are Bills apparel. I had XM radio just so I could listen to NFL talk all year long. But I had to cut the cord when these snowflakes made it about politics and hating our country, and not about football.
-
And that's exactly why it was illegal.It was well explained why it was legal, why there was no flag, why there will be no suspension, fine, why multiple officiating expert corroborated the call. It's correct.
Just because Rodgers was mad it doesn't change it.
Not sure why it would be a challenge to understand why it was legal, but people argue from uninformed positions with misinterpretations of facts all the time.
What WILL happen, to prove the above, is the rule will be examined in the offseason and revised, because the nfl doesn't like losing star performers to fractured collarbones and I do assert that Barr could have dove around him. He knew he was getting an intimidation hit on the QB who had release the ball
-
Wow, an internet tough guy.It was a legal hit
Its football and it is a contact sport. If Rodgers doesn't want to be tackled then maybe he should switch to basketball or baseball because there was nothing wrong with that hit
-
I think this has to be viewed in context. Ratings of all the major sports are down, not just the NFL. The NBA, which everyone seems to agree is more popular than ever, saw its regular season ratings fall 6 percent (the same percentage as the NFL's drop so far this year). So it's not clear if the ratings are down because there is something wrong with the game or simply due to other factors beyond the league's control, such as the endless variety of other broadcast entertainment options that are available to people.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest problems are the officiating and the proliferation of injuries, especially to the league's marquee players. The officiating is worse than its ever been, to the point where even serious fans are actually starting to wonder whether the games are fixed, like this weekend in the NE-Jets game. And the worst part about it is that the technology exists to at least minimize the number of mistakes. I think it hurts the sport when games are decided on non-existent pass interference penalties, when those sorts of plays can easily be reviewed and corrected, just like other blown calls.
-
if they weren't in a union.that's you, and your business. But you could also tell them not to, and you could tell them that those types of displays at work are not acceptable.
-
It's explained in detail in this thread. Give it a read.Exactly. Don't know why people think the hit on A Rod was dirty
-
Then how did he end up on the ground?Rodgers wasn't thrown down at all.
-
That's just the clincher. I agree, but I think it's roughing regardless.
You're very right, though, in that the 'when in doubt' clause should be invoked, especially when we can't agree on whether or not 'driving the QB' or 'landing (on top of the QB with) all or most of the defender's weight' came into play.
Again, pretty obvious roughing call.
One thing this episode shows is that we can safely ignore what the talking heads and former referees say to try to convince us that the refs on the field made the right call (or no-call).
-
If I'm reading it right, you can't tackle the passer in the manner Barr did regardless of whether the passer is in or out of the pocket, or even if he initiated contact DURING a throw'
I think that's right, especially since the rule expressly applies even when the "one step rule" is complied with, but the key is whether the action was "uneccessary". In this case, when the ball was clearly away, it was unnecessary.
-
Finishing a tackle isn't the same thing as intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball.
He was not "finishing a tackle". Rodgers did not have the ball, and had not had it for some time.
-
1. -'As soon as he released the ball' doesn't really mean anything. The rule says : 'A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (1) above'
2. -'Outside the pocket' doesn't take away the subsection 2 protections afforded passers, which I quoted above.
3. -'On the run': doesn't really have any bearing here.
4. -'Didn't drive him into the ground at all'...I guess that's a judgement call, but Barr's pretty clearly in violation of 'When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms.'
It's very clear to me this was roughing the passer.
Absolutely correct. And don't forget the other important part of the rule: When in doubt, the referee should be call roughing the passer. Neither 26, nor Blandino/Pereira mention that part of the rule.
-
Yes mannc is the correct arbitrator while two former directors of NFL officiating don't know what they're talking about.
I've quoted the rule and explained very clearly why I believe it should have been a penalty. You've yet to refute that, but instead posted a link showing that Blandino and Pereira clearly don't know the rule.
-
Rodgers was hit as soon as he released the ball outside of the pocket and on the run. Barr tackled him, but didn't drive him into the ground at all. No flag on a clean hit. Period.
If he didn't "drive him into the ground at all" or "land on him with all or most of his body weight" (which is also illegal) then how did Rodgers get hurt? And he was not hit "as soon as he released the ball."
Kaepernick Files Grievance Against NFL Owners
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
That's a very good question. The answer probably depends upon the time, place and manner of the protest, the content of the protest, the terms of the CBA, the terms of the player contracts, the league rules, and how those rules have been applied and interpreted in the past. I would suggest that the more offensive and obnoxious the protest (I understand that's subjective), the more likely it is that the league or the teams could successfully prohibit it under one or more of these agreements.