Rubes

Yeah, I still think it qualifies as a "Palpably Unfair Act", and if the ref believes it had a significant impact on the outcome of the play, he would have the authority to award whatever he sees fit. I think a grayer area would be if Ginn wasn't absolutely "running free" -- that is, that maybe there were one or two Ravens who might make the tackle, but just as easily might not. Say, for instance, that Ginn only has the kicker (or in this case, punter) left to beat for the TD, and someone jumps off the sidelines to tackle him? Does the ref believe the punter was really going to make the tackle to save the Super Bowl win?

He's an RFA, so he won't be tough to re-sign. It's not an urgent matter.

:lol:

Sure, but who knows if any of his teammates understood what he meant? Or even if they could see the one man left to beat and just thought he was running free? Some of these guys aren't too bright.

Sure, but what if he only had one man to beat? In that case, the odds are fairly even that the guy is either going to get past him or get tackled. Imagine the ref getting put into that position, where he gets to decide who wins the Super Bowl based on his determination if the guy would have scored or not...

You don't have to watch the video. There's a plain text story linked right there from the very beginning.

All I can think of when I see this name is Ogie Ogilthorpe.

Overheard on the sidelines, Joe Flacco told teammates standing with him that they should tackle Ted Ginn Jr if he broke it and was heading for a final TD to win it. If that happened, what would the refs be able to do, right? Interesting thing is, the refs could actually award a score to the 49ers. I never knew that. The rule: Could you imagine this actually happening? The media firestorm would be crazy. Here's the NFL Films video showing Flacco saying these things. It occurs around the 4:00 mark. I can't quite tell if he's kidding around, but it doesn't seem like it.

Sorry, this is football. Penalties never, ever, ever stop a play from running through to its completion once the ball is snapped. Dead-ball fouls, of course -- such as illegal procedure -- are called before the ball is snapped. That is consistent throughout the game of professional football. There is no inconsistency there. It has always been that way. It is not a loophole. As KD said, there are many possible outcomes from a play, and once a penalty occurs during the flow of a play, the play is allowed to finish completely so that other possible outcomes can be allowed to happen.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone reading this thread. If you read through the entire thread, you'll realize that's not what he's saying. If you grab and hold someone, yes, it is illegal. But if you grab and hold someone before the ball is thrown, it is "holding." If you grab and hold someone after the ball is thrown, it is "pass interference." In cases of pass interference, however, the refs have the ability to make a judgment call on whether the ball was catchable or not. If they think not, they don't have to throw the flag. This is what Dave is arguing: that it was pass interference, not holding, but that since the ball was not catchable, there was no foul. The problem I have with that argument is that we rarely see the "non-catchable ball" called on the field anymore. One could argue that the ball was non-catchable explicitly because the receiver was held and prevented from getting to it. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I fully expected to see the flag thrown on that play because there was clear contact, and because we hardly ever see them rule that the ball is not catchable anymore. Either way, I don't really care -- it was fine with me. I'd rather see no call in those situations.

I definitely agree with this. I think Smith was just starting to come into his own when he was replaced. I have always thought he had a strong arm and good accuracy.

Man oh man. Everyone in those videos got exactly what they deserve. Wait, I don't get it. First you said the bulls in the video are about ideal, then you said they aren't too great. It certainly does look like the bulls in those videos are sometimes just doing things to !@#$ with those people.

Exactly. And if you trade down expecting that the guy should still be available at pick X, someone else who really needs a QB and suspects this is what you're doing may very well trade up to pick (X-1) to jump ahead of you and grab the guy you thought would still be available at pick X. Just because you "think" he should still be available later on, doesn't mean he will be. So it depends on how much you want the guy, and how much you're willing to risk.

I can't even remember what it's like to have to draft in the 26th position.

The Bills are in a tough spot because so many teams in front of them on the draft board need QBs. With the tendency to often pick QBs higher than they rate, it's a risky move to hope one of those guys is there in the second round. I'm not a big proponent of moving up into the first to grab someone risky (see: Losman), but if the Bills really like a second-round-type guy like EJ they may have to move up.

Well played, sir.

Whoever was playing the Patriots. I also wanted the Raiders to beat the Bucs, mostly because I didn't want to see a franchise like the friggin Bucs win a Super Bowl before us.

If he's off of the Jets, that's good for us.

If only he played for Norway...

Jesus. This thread is like reading a Yahoo news story comments section.

Hmm...so how was it that we finished with the #6 rushing offense last year if everybody figured it out? Good grief, are people here so tightly wound they can't just have a decent discussion without crapping all over the OP? I never got the impression he was trying to say "Fitz is great!", just that he was trying to compare his Bills tenure with Bledsoe's tenure, neither of which were stellar. Yes, Fitz and Bledsoe were about equal in their Bills performances. Neither did much to get the Bills over the hump, despite their supporting casts. Bledsoe won a little more, Fitz had slightly better stats. Neither one got us to the playoffs. But I think it's at least interesting to consider that Fitz, whom we all think of as an "average" to "below average" QB, was about as good as a Bledsoe in decline. That's something I hadn't considered. Not that it means anything, but it's an interesting thought.

There's a little irony for you.

Here's Ed's tweet: Ed Werder ‏@Edwerderespn NFL will review Tom Brady play for possible discipline for appearing as though he tried to defend himself by kicking at Ed Reed

Ed Reed is most definitely not a 300 lb monster. He's the guy Marcia was targeting.