sharper802 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 What is the over-under on sentences until fat bast&*d complains about the overtime rules again? PS Awful calls against the Vikings in OT. That ball was uncatchable I am not even sure there was interference. I also am not convinced that was a catch. The ball can touch the ground only if the player has simultaneous control - that was the rule change. No way he had control and it looked like the ball hit the turf when it bounced off his thigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 What is the over-under on sentences until fat bast&*d complains about the overtime rules again? Yeah, well Peter King is right. The OT rules suck. This was only the latest example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 blah blah blah The Vikes had their chances. On one of those inomplete passes, the ball bounced right up into the hands of one of the Vike defenders for an easy tip drill pick. Had he held onto that. the vikes offense would have gotten their chance. Byrd or that dude form the Jets would have held on to it for sure. Shoot, even Peason Prielow probably would have help onto it. sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 blah blah blah The Vikes had their chances. On one of those inomplete passes, the ball bounced right up into the hands of one of the Vike defenders for an easy tip drill pick. Had he held onto that. the vikes offense would have gotten their chance. Byrd or that dude form the Jets would have held on to it for sure. Shoot, even Peason Prielow probably would have help onto it. sour grapes. True. But they didn't get their chances with the refs. Not that I wasn't rooting for the Saints, I was rooting for the Saints. I just hate seeing games were one team gets hosed by the officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 True. But they didn't get their chances with the refs. Not that I wasn't rooting for the Saints, I was rooting for the Saints. I just hate seeing games were one team gets hosed by the officials. I was rooting for the Saints too and it didn't look to me like anyone got hosed by the officials. That PI in the end zone earlier in the game giving the Vikes the ball on the one wasn't exactly a good call either. Refs were trying to give it to St. Brett and the Vikes, but they just wouldn't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 how about the hit where Favre got hurt? where one guy had him high and another guy took at least 2 steps after Favre had passed, and hit him low in the legs from behind. was that legal? awfully dangerous if it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I was rooting for the Saints too and it didn't look to me like anyone got hosed by the officials. That PI in the end zone earlier in the game giving the Vikes the ball on the one wasn't exactly a good call either. Refs were trying to give it to St. Brett and the Vikes, but they just wouldn't take it. What about the PI in OT... That should have been a non-call, incidental contact and the ball was grossly overthrown. The catch right before the kick in OT was a trap... You can see it hitting the gound. What about the spot on the 4th and 1 when the Saints had the ball jarred by the helmet... Pretty gracious spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 how about the hit where Favre got hurt? where one guy had him high and another guy took at least 2 steps after Favre had passed, and hit him low in the legs from behind. was that legal? awfully dangerous if it is That too. You see how the Pakers got hosed int he Cards game on QB hits? No doubt about it, the NFL wanted NO in the show... Even Bears fans that hate the Vikes could see it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Holy crap will it ever end. Just found an article summarizing overtime results from 1974-2003. Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365 Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %) Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %) Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %) Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %) Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %) Interestingly, though, the author concludes: "The data appear to support the notion that the football team scoring first in sudden-death overtime is usually the one that had won the coin toss and received the ball." However, I think the author is not a football fan and does not fully understand the argument. The number to look at is 28%, not 52%. That is, only 28% of the time has the coin toss winner won the game without playing defense. Just because the same team that won the coin toss also won the game - after both teams had a possession - doesn't translate to an advantage. IMO. In 72% of OT games, both teams' offense get the ball. Clearly, the argument that it is somehow unfair because one team doesn't get the ball, just isn't supported by the numbers. None the less, people will still argue it. I can only guess it's because they don't get to see their "stars" play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Holy crap will it ever end. Just found an article summarizing overtime results from 1974-2003. Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365 Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %) Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %) Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %) Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %) Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %) Interestingly, though, the author concludes: "The data appear to support the notion that the football team scoring first in sudden-death overtime is usually the one that had won the coin toss and received the ball." However, I think the author is not a football fan and does not fully understand the argument. The number to look at is 28%, not 52%. That is, only 28% of the time has the coin toss winner won the game without playing defense. Just because the same team that won the coin toss also won the game - after both teams had a possession - doesn't translate to an advantage. IMO. In 72% of OT games, both teams' offense get the ball. Clearly, the argument that it is somehow unfair because one team doesn't get the ball, just isn't supported by the numbers. None the less, people will still argue it. I can only guess it's because they don't get to see their "stars" play. Got any stats on just playoffs? Even if it was 2%, nothing should ever hinge on a coin toss. That is just wrong. What I am saying is the coin toss gives one team an unfair edge or extra chance. 1. the can run back the kick. 2. They get the offense poss. At least make it where a team has to match or better... It would stop the silly kicks to end it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Got any stats on just playoffs? Even if it was 2%, nothing should ever hinge on a coin toss. That is just wrong. What I am saying is the coin toss gives one team an unfair edge or extra chance. 1. the can run back the kick. 2. They get the offense poss. At least make it where a team has to match or better... It would stop the silly kicks to end it. According to Rich Eisen on tonight's NFL Gameday Final: in the last 10 playoff OT games, 2 have been decided on the first possession. I haven't checked that for confirmation though. I guess that's the problem. You, and others, seem to want both teams' offense to have the ball in 100% of OT games. For myself, and others, it's only important that the majority of games are not decided by the coin toss. Hence, we'll always disagree... on this one topic at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 how about the hit where Favre got hurt? where one guy had him high and another guy took at least 2 steps after Favre had passed, and hit him low in the legs from behind. was that legal? awfully dangerous if it isThat was beautiful... loved seeing Favre get the **** kicked out of him all game long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 According to Rich Eisen on tonight's NFL Gameday Final: in the last 10 playoff OT games, 2 have been decided on the first possession. I haven't checked that for confirmation though. I guess that's the problem. You, and others, seem to want both teams' offense to have the ball in 100% of OT games. For myself, and others, it's only important that the majority of games are not decided by the coin toss. Hence, we'll always disagree... on this one topic at least. Exactly. It should be 100% of the time and nothing should be left to chance or an unfair advantage. Nothing less will do. It is wrong to give a team an unfair advantage, even if it is 1% of the time. You know why? Because that advantage is actually intentional. Just imagine if we applied the same standard to officiating... People would be howling. Do ifs, ands and buts about it, both teams should be allowed to play both sides of the ball. Suddeen if fine for games like soccer, or hockey where a team can play both sides. Just imagine if a basketball game was decided on a jump ball to start OT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 That was beautiful... loved seeing Favre get the **** kicked out of him all game long. True. But it still illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 True. But it still illegal.Yes, but the ends justify the means... just like when Siragusa squished Gannon 9 years ago. If the Jets would've done that to Peyton Gump, they'd still be playing in 2 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yes, but the ends justify the means... just like when Siragusa squished Gannon 9 years ago. If the Jets would've done that to Peyton Gump, they'd still be playing in 2 weeks. well i disagree with that. i dont see how you can root for someone to get hurt like that. and the game to lose starting QBs, which makes reduces the quality of play when they're gone. i remember in super bowl when leonard marshal took what must have been 5 steps from behind after kelly threw it and nailed him in the upper back. kelly never seemed to the same. marshal should have been thrown out of the game for a blatant attempt to injure another player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 well i disagree with that. i dont see how you can root for someone to get hurt like that. and the game to lose starting QBs, which makes reduces the quality of play when they're gone. i remember in super bowl when leonard marshal took what must have been 5 steps from behind after kelly threw it and nailed him in the upper back. kelly never seemed to the same. marshal should have been thrown out of the game for a blatant attempt to injure another player The rules were different back then... Ya, it hurts, but I agree with Rico only with regard to back then. Today the rules are different to make sure the QB doesn't get killed. All I am asking is to enforce the rules... If they can't do that, change them back. That is only fair. This selctive BS should have died with such crap as "No Goal." In that bush league at least one can expect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 well i disagree with that. i dont see how you can root for someone to get hurt like that. and the game to lose starting QBs, which makes reduces the quality of play when they're gone. i remember in super bowl when leonard marshal took what must have been 5 steps from behind after kelly threw it and nailed him in the upper back. kelly never seemed to the same. marshal should have been thrown out of the game for a blatant attempt to injure another playerI don't know... I think it's different if your team is doing the smacking & you don't like the other QB. For instance, I absolutely LOVED seeing Bruce kill Boomer Esiason when he was on the Jets. Good times! and God bless Everett McIver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 What about the PI in OT... That should have been a non-call, incidental contact and the ball was grossly overthrown. The catch right before the kick in OT was a trap... You can see it hitting the gound. What about the spot on the 4th and 1 when the Saints had the ball jarred by the helmet... Pretty gracious spot. That was a ridiculous call in OT of the conference championship. Reminded me of the Serena Williams footfault call last year at the US Open. The ref should never work another big game. Same with the umpire in the Williams match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I was rooting for the Saints too and it didn't look to me like anyone got hosed by the officials. That PI in the end zone earlier in the game giving the Vikes the ball on the one wasn't exactly a good call either. Refs were trying to give it to St. Brett and the Vikes, but they just wouldn't take it. There's a difference between a bad call in the early in a game and one in overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts