Patrick Duffy Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I thought it was just a great defensive play. Cooks was doing circles on the field completely unaware and unafraid . Jenkins tried to separate him from the ball and make a big p,any for his team. Agree. It was a great defensive play. 1
Doc Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said: I'm not complaining at all with a call going against the Patriots after all of the "breaks" they have received from the officials over the years. I'd rather the calls still be legit. 1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said: I thought it was just a great defensive play. Cooks was doing circles on the field completely unaware and unafraid . Jenkins tried to separate him from the ball and make a big play for his team. It's a play that's happened many times.
/dev/null Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 https://sports.theonion.com/flustered-father-struggling-to-answer-all-of-son-s-ques-1822736902 1
Big Turk Posted February 13, 2018 Author Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Well...looks like Perreira agrees with me...said they were lined up wrong and it should have been called. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/mike-pereira-eagles-lined-illegally-224246088.html Edited February 13, 2018 by matter2003
oldmanfan Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 4 hours ago, matter2003 said: Well...looks like Perreira agrees with me...said they were lined up wrong and it should have been called. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/mike-pereira-eagles-lined-illegally-224246088.html It is a judgment call. The ref on the field had a better view and judged it as OK. The WR checked with him on it. Let it go. 3
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 5 hours ago, matter2003 said: Well...looks like Perreira agrees with me...said they were lined up wrong and it should have been called. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/mike-pereira-eagles-lined-illegally-224246088.html I'm going to repeat what a lot of people have said: that Jeffrey checked the formation with the line judge beforehand. Now, if you want to hit the Enhance button enough times to figure out down to the millimeter where someone was lined up, and it was off, then it's a no call, but it looks like the Eagles make legitimate attempts to make sure they were in an acceptable formation. And of course, no one is mentioning how, on the play before that, Alshon Jeffrey was mugged in the end zone with a no call. Scoring there would have eliminated the need for the "Philly Special". Same thing on the interception, where if the refs were being ticky tak, that could have been holding. They called fairly consistently through the game, and gave the Patriot DBs plenty of leeway. 3
26CornerBlitz Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 31 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: I'm going to repeat what a lot of people have said: that Jeffrey checked the formation with the line judge beforehand. Now, if you want to hit the Enhance button enough times to figure out down to the millimeter where someone was lined up, and it was off, then it's a no call, but it looks like the Eagles make legitimate attempts to make sure they were in an acceptable formation. And of course, no one is mentioning how, on the play before that, Alshon Jeffrey was mugged in the end zone with a no call. Scoring there would have eliminated the need for the "Philly Special". Same thing on the interception, where if the refs were being ticky tak, that could have been holding. They called fairly consistently through the game, and gave the Patriot DBs plenty of leeway. The Patriot Lee-Way. 1
dave mcbride Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 5 hours ago, oldmanfan said: It is a judgment call. The ref on the field had a better view and judged it as OK. The WR checked with him on it. Let it go. It's actually not really a judgment call. It's math-related, and there's a right and wrong answer. The fact that the WR checked with an official who gave him a categorically wrong answer doesn't mean that it was OK. It should have been a penalty, and it's pretty cut and dried. That said, Philly won, which is a very good thing.
Doc Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: It's actually not really a judgment call. It's math-related, and there's a right and wrong answer. The fact that the WR checked with an official who gave him a categorically wrong answer doesn't mean that it was OK. It should have been a penalty, and it's pretty cut and dried. That said, Philly won, which is a very good thing. It's semantics. He checked with the official that would have flagged him and he said it was okay. And it changed nothing at all about the play. 3 1
oldmanfan Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 23 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: It's actually not really a judgment call. It's math-related, and there's a right and wrong answer. The fact that the WR checked with an official who gave him a categorically wrong answer doesn't mean that it was OK. It should have been a penalty, and it's pretty cut and dried. That said, Philly won, which is a very good thing. No, actually it is not. Unless you are going to give the refs tape measures to align guys every play it is a judgment. So no it is not cut and dried. 1
dave mcbride Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: No, actually it is not. Unless you are going to give the refs tape measures to align guys every play it is a judgment. So no it is not cut and dried. He was *clearly* not on the line. It wasn't close. It was very much a cut and dry case. More importantly, though, Philly won. That's what matters in the end. 7 minutes ago, Doc said: It's semantics. He checked with the official that would have flagged him and he said it was okay. And it changed nothing at all about the play. It's not semantics; it's math. The referee was in error. Regardless, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, and it helped Philly win.
oldmanfan Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 1 minute ago, dave mcbride said: He was *clearly* not on the line. It wasn't close. It was very much a cut and dry case. More importantly, though, Philly won. That's what matters in the end. Please. Eyeballing something is a judgment. Actually measuring something and giving it a defined value is math. My reading says they give about a half yard from the tackle. The ref said fine and that's all that matters. 1 1
Big C Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 18 hours ago, Boatdrinks said: I thought it was just a great defensive play. Cooks was doing circles on the field completely unaware and unafraid . Jenkins tried to separate him from the ball and make a big play for his team. Yup. At that point he's not a defenseless receiver. He's running against the grain and looking up field and that's his own fault. 1
Doc Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 15 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: It's not semantics; it's math. The referee was in error. Regardless, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, and it helped Philly win. Again it's a judgment call. Had the official told Jeffery "no, you need to be up a couple feet," Jeffery would have done it and nothing else would have changed about that play. And being a few feet back was no advantage to Philly. Now if Jeffery didn't ask the official, then you could argue that they got away with one. But again, being a few feet back didn't mean anything. And frankly I have no idea why that rule is in place. Does anyone know?
Luxy312 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Again it's a judgment call. Had the official told Jeffery "no, you need to be up a couple feet," Jeffery would have done it and nothing else would have changed about that play. And being a few feet back was no advantage to Philly. Now if Jeffery didn't ask the official, then you could argue that they got away with one. But again, being a few feet back didn't mean anything. And frankly I have no idea why that rule is in place. Does anyone know? I believe it has to do with knowing who are eligible receivers and who are not. Speculating, but believe I read that somewhere.
Bills of Boston Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 I love how pats fans are taking pride in the fact no ones opening complaining about the refs and telling other fan bases to do the same Etc wonder where their insufferable NEXT MAN UP mantra has been? oh right. It’s next man up until they lose and need an excuse. #malcolm
benderbender Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 On 2/5/2018 at 5:16 PM, matter2003 said: Jeffrey had to be on the LOS as they only had 6 players lined up on the ball instead of 7...play should have been flsgged for illegal formation... Guess it was Pats turn to get screwed last night by the stripes Hahahahaha. Like this?
Shamrock Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 On 06/02/2018 at 9:16 AM, matter2003 said: Jeffrey had to be on the LOS as they only had 6 players lined up on the ball instead of 7...play should have been flsgged for illegal formation... Guess it was Pats turn to get screwed last night by the stripes Hahahahaha. It also looks like a Pats helmet is into the neutral zone, at least shading the tip of the ball. Which is offside and an offensive free play... /penalty. 2 1
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 Screw the Pats. Karma bitches!!
Recommended Posts