scarey
-
Posts
1,840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by scarey
-
He's gotten better. But health has always been his biggest issue. This might be his longest healthy stretch. I'd like to see him healthy for a whole season before i get too excited. Two of his picks this year have been on tipped passes, which count just the same, but still. WRIGHT PLACE, WRIGHT TIME AMIWRIGHT?
-
Is it a linkable image/vid? I'd like to see it. It was posted in a different forum. It had an SB Nation logo on it. Was trying to find it, between doing actual real work, lol. EDIT: Found it. http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1210517/refss.gif
-
I just saw an excellent camera shot of the point of the catch that shows Tate did not initially get two hands on the ball and actually barely got one on the ball. I've changed my mind based on that, it should have been an interception. Still, I don't blame the refs for making that call in real time and they should be able to review it. With the look I got, it would have been an easy judgement call. If it's not an easy judgement call, you can let the play stand as called because there's not enough evidence to over rule the play.
-
Or they felt the call was correctly made. ;)
-
Is the Bell sucks sentiment prominent? I've always been impressed by Bell outside of his fumbleitis at the end of last year.
-
You mean all the talking heads at ESPN? The same guys that, even after getting a full explanation on why the Calvin Johnson "catch" was not in fact a catch, still moaned and groaned, "Well... it's just not right. It doesn't pass the eye test." I'll be interested to hear the statement from the NFL today.
-
no, it wasn't. I've pretty throroghly explained why, based on the wording of the rule, I think it was the right call. I would really like to hear your explanation on why you think it wasn't.
-
this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do. http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/212/SeahawksCatch_original.gif?1348545245 On the second replay, it appears that tate and jennings hands hit the ball at the same time. the rule says "gains control" not "hands hit the ball." It's still plenty debatable. I'm convinced the real refs would've made a mess of this one as well. I agree. I'm not saying what happened was right. Just like the Calvin Johnson play was not right. I'm just saying it was actually called correctly by the wording in the rule (whether the replacement refs got lucky on the call or not). Just like the Calvin Johnson play. Also, I really think the NFL should look at that rule and reword it. Just like the rule involved in the Calvin Johnson play (which they did and didn't change...).
-
Really? Refs have conflicting judgements all the time and over rule each other. I'm not clear on how the process of over ruling is conducted, but it seriously happens quite often.
-
Yeah, that's the one I keep talking about.
-
this is what happened. and that's giving tate credit for "subsequently gaining joint control," which he really didn't do. Watch the from-mid-field perspective. Both players slap their hands on the ball at the same time. Both attempt to bring it into their bodies at the same time. Jennings basically lands on Tate and when he rolls over, you can make a case that Tate loses control of the ball. That's about it. Also, please do not imply I have perception impairment or a mental illness.
-
double post
-
By the time the players hit the ground, which is when possession is determined, both players had the ball. Simultaneous catch goes to the offense. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule. Think of all the other catches that would have to be re-examined if that's the case. If that's all it takes to trigger the simultaneous rule, then it would be very difficult for a defender to ever get an INT where the receiver can make a token stab at possession. The rule clearly indicates that if a different player attempts to "take control" of the ball after the first player initially already does, that the simultaneous catch rule is not active. It also clearly states that if either player "loses control", it is then up for grabs meaning the other player that maintains control makes a catch and there is no simultaneous catch. One of those two happens on 99.99999999999999% of passes. I could see an argument for Tate "losing control" after both players on the ground and Jennings rolls over on Tate. However, I don't think it's obvious and I definitely do not think it's a cut and dry call in real time, when the play must be judged.
-
By the time the players hit the ground, which is when possession is determined, both players had the ball. Simultaneous catch goes to the offense. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule. Putting one hand on the ball doesn't mean Tate "had the ball". There's a shot from a mid field perspective that shows four hands clapping on the ball all at the same time. Two of those belonged to Jennings, two to Tate. At that point, one player has to "lose control" of the ball for it to not be a simultaneous catch. Even in slow motion, it's hard for me to determine if Tate actually "loses control" of the ball coming down with it. The refs had to make that call in real time though. Only thing the review was able to do was determine if it was a catch or a non-catch. Bottom line, the call was not nearly as egregious as everyone's making it out to be. It may even be the right call.
-
I just watched the play in slow motion. Jennings catches the ball first and Tate has his right hand on Jennings's right forearm. As they're going down, he removes his hand from Jennings's forearm and tries to grab the ball. Jennings had control of the ball first and the whole time. Tate didn't. It seems pretty clear that the second sentence in that rule explains it. You can't have possession on a catch until you come to the ground. I'm actually pretty sure the replacement refs got this right. Well, outside of thePI.
-
I bet he was just sitting back, mouth agape thinking "How cool is this? I get a front row ticket to a game deciding Hail Mary pass." That game couldn't have ended any more perfectly.
-
That faint sound you here? That's the combined reverberation of every NFL referee cheering and every Green Bay fan simultaneously crapping themselves. And if you were curious, almost half of those Green Bay fans will not hesitate to walk sullenly to their bed without changing their drawers.
-
Are you sure he pulled his groin? Rotoworld said he was benched for a penalty and that's why he didn't return. It was coincidental that he got a penalty before being pulled for injury. Fisher said it was strictly due to injury in the post game.
-
They just missed two calls on one play.
-
Bears are certainly feisty after every single play. The guy tried to throw him down, out of bounds, well after the play was over. Is he supposed to give the guy his autograph instead?
-
How is that a non call?
-
I blame Armando Allen.
-
My wife thinks I'm a maniac. Hell, I kind of am a maniac right now.
-
Someone needs to show that replay to Webb. As soon as Matthews turned it up to go wide around him, Louis used his momentum to push him past Cutler. Just like that Webb.
-
I understand they are pressing our receivers, but there has to be a quick slant out there somewhere with all the blitzing. It's baffling.