Pneumonic

MattM, you do agents Mulder and Scully proud.

Really little Green Bay won the SB not so long ago. But let me play along. If the league is fixed as you say ...... for how long has this been the case? And who is the mastermind of it all ... Goodell? What owners are in on it? Are they selective of the refs that they involve?

Are you saying that the league has ensured that Levy is in place to help ensure the Pats win?

So, you think a big setup is in place and the league has conspired with league officials to help ensure the big name teams/players win? If so, for how long do you suppose this has taken place and are all the team owners involved?

They are also there to ensure the safety of the players out on the field. Sometimes that means having to get involved in a pre-emptive fashion. I accept that as does, apparently, the league.

I see that side of the point. Though, waiting until after the play, my have health consequences for the LS that the league is not willing to risk.

As I said previously, I can't say either way if they should intervene in order to protect the health of a susceptible player. My point is much simpler .... the Hightower play last night wasn't a penalty in accordance with the rules for Hightower wasn't within the 1 yard LOS rule limitation when the ref re-directed him.

A defender can be lined-up over the LS. he just can'r do so any closer to 1 yard of the LS while doing so. In last night's games, Hightower was ~2 yards away from the LS when the ref intervened. So, Hightower's actions weren't even penalty worthy to begin with!

I think what often times happen when you have situation of complete and utter domination (as is the case with Bills and Pats) is those who have fallen victim to such domination (ie the fans of dominated team in this case) often look for ways and means to explain, even rationalize, how such domination can occur. Often times illogical aspects and components are entered into as evidence when, in fact, they are not at all accurate or truly representative of reality. But, it makes those involved feel good that their is a reason, other than the obvious, that explains for such futility. This may be an example of such a situation. How can you not agree that the rule isn't in place to help with the well-being of the LS? There is a requirement for a defender to not be situated any closer to 1 yard away from LS and not lined-up directly over top of him. It's a VERY explicit rule done, obviously, for a VERY specific reason ... to protect the LS. In the play last night, even though Hightower was line-up over the LS, the ref SHOULDN'T have re-directed Hightower for he was beyond the 1 yard limitation. In re-directing Hightower as he did, the ref might have caused a negative play.

I'm not saying the rule enforcement is good or bad - though I do understand it's intent is to minimize the health risk to the long snapper on the play - which I believe to be a good thing. I'm just saying it's a commonly seen practice throughout the league that is not just limited to the Pats as some of the critics seem to be implying.

Philosophically, OK. But, the reality is .... this play wasn't a penalty due to the fact that Hightower wasn't within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage at the time the ref re-positioned him. Regardless of whether or not Hightower's intent was to end up in that 1 yard criteria area or not. Ironically, since Hightower was in accordance with the rules and the ref re-positioned him, it could be argued that the ref did a dis-service to the Pats on that play. One which might have negatively impacted the result.

But you are and you may not even realize it.

It's odd because you are making it out to be a situation where the ref purposely did something that specifically benefited the Pats. This is clearly not the case as witnessed by the regularity with which the play happens throughout the league, in games not involving the Pats. Furthermore, the league is on record as saying it encourages its refs to handle plays exactly as last night's ref did.

Countless reasons (which none of us could possibly extract with any degree of accuracy) could exist that explain the above I suppose. But what does the above have to do with the play in question which clearly wasn't a penalty? To belabor this anymore is nothing more than ..... odd.

You'll have to ask the league that I suppose. What is odd is the extent some people go too to use ref favoritism to justify why the Pats constantly win.

The reffing is bad enough as it it. Surely, you don't want refs determining player intent before a play even happens. Not that this part really matters as the league admitted it is common practice for refs to re-direct players on such plays.

In the picture above, it is clear that the ref is touching him 2 yards from the LOS ..............

Two components are needed for this play to be called a penalty. The defender must be over the long snapper AND he must be within 1 yard of the LOS. While it is true that Hightower was over the LS (until the ref corrected him) it is also true that Hightower was beyond the 1 yard mark and so was legally lined-up. Not only was this not a penalty but the ref should not have re-positioned Hightower out of his perfectly legal placement. The rule in question: Here's picture which clearly shows Hightower beyond the 1 yard from LOS mark.

....... coaching and QB .............

I would consider Mario to be the only big name of the bunch. For him is what all about the $$$$$$

Williams' issues have never been related to his physical talent. It's what's between (or not between) his ears that's the issue.

All he had to do was read Watkin's tweets to know that Revis was going to follow him around all game.

BB is like a chameleon. He would simply morph into a different nightmare gameplan and entrust his savant QB to enact upon it. Kinda like what he did by sitting down Wright yesterday in favour of WR matchup advantages.

He's been a headcase and a quitter since his 'cuse days.