Super Bowl LII Thread

[skinsfaninok]

Apparently Kevin Hart got butthurt because they denied his access to the stage, another Rich ass hole that thinks he can do what he wants.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Apparently Kevin Hart got butthurt because they denied his access to the stage, another Rich ass hole that thinks he can do what he wants.

As they were getting ready to present the trophy there was a quick shot of him arguing with the security. He was like the first guy on line to try and get up on stage. Why the hell would he want to be up there with the players and coaches? Did he have something to do with the win? Unbelievable.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by punch it in

As they were getting ready to present the trophy there was a quick shot of him arguing with the security. He was like the first guy on line to try and get up on stage. Why the hell would he want to be up there with the players and coaches? Did he have something to do with the win? Unbelievable.

then he drops the F bomb on NFLN just to be cool, dude get out of here

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

then he drops the F bomb on NFLN just to be cool, dude get out of here

His insta apology in the car was hysterical though. If i had more time id post the link but its easy to find if u haven’t seen it yet.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by punch it in

His insta apology in the car was hysterical though. If i had more time id post the link but its easy to find if u haven’t seen it yet.

Yeah he was like kiss my ass, sorry not sorry

[SolidSnake84]

also, what the hell was up with Chris Collinsworth last night? Just about every score the Eagles would get, he would go on and on about how it was a "bad call", or some other shit. Aren't the commentators supposed to generally be unbiased? Did anybody else notice it, or was it just me?

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

also, what the hell was up with Chris Collinsworth last night? Just about every score the Eagles would get, he would go on and on about how it was a "bad call", or some other shit. Aren't the commentators supposed to generally be unbiased? Did anybody else notice it, or was it just me?

I cant stand him, he's so bad, everyone is great in his eyes blah blah

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

also, what the hell was up with Chris Collinsworth last night? Just about every score the Eagles would get, he would go on and on about how it was a "bad call", or some other shit. Aren't the commentators supposed to generally be unbiased? Did anybody else notice it, or was it just me?

Yes seems like he’ll pick one team and be more enthusiastic for them than the opponent.

[MTK]

Yes the catch rule needs to be re-worked but I’m really getting tired of announcers in the booth complicating matters.

The Ertz play was pretty clear, he took 3 steps and dove for the end zone. The fact they were questioning it was annoying AF.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by MTK

Yes the catch rule needs to be re-worked but I’m really getting tired of announcers in the booth complicating matters.

The Ertz play was pretty clear, he took 3 steps and dove for the end zone. The fact they were questioning it was annoying AF.

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

I dont see how you can agree with the Jesse James catch but thought the Clement's ruling was ok? Ball was obviously moving,that should have been a no catch under the current rule the way they have called it this year,but the rule is so fucking confusing,no consistency whatsoever,so no wonder it's confusing to the announcers,and the Ertz catch I thought was a catch and run,but I can see why Collingsworth could be confused after he couldnt believe the Clements call stood.

As for Brady,I was definitely pulling for him to pull it out.Haters gonna hate.That dude probably works harder then anybody at his game,takes extreme care of his body,demands accountability from his teammates,ultimate competitor.
AT 40 YEARS OLD!!! Wins MVP! I dont think he is truly appreciated for how good he is,has anybody at QB position ever come close to winning MVP at his age before? Shreds Phillys defense for over 500 yards in a Super Bowl! And he had an off game lol
Dude is unbelievable

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

I dont see how you can agree with the Jesse James catch but thought the Clement's ruling was ok? Ball was obviously moving,that should have been a no catch under the current rule the way they have called it this year,but the rule is so fucking confusing,no consistency whatsoever,so no wonder it's confusing to the announcers,and the Ertz catch I thought was a catch and run,but I can see why Collingsworth could be confused after he couldnt believe the Clements call stood.

For me (and again as the rule is written now, not saying the rule is perfect) it's simple:

-On the Jesse James overturned TD, he catches the ball going to the ground, and the ball moves when it hits the ground . On replay, it's conclusive. You can't argue that the ball did not move. You can argue it didn't move much, but it did move when it hit the ground, he lost control of the ball because of the ground. Conclusive evidence = overturn the call.

-On the Clement's TD, the ball never hits the ground, it's in an awkward position but you can argue about wether he had control or not. Remember you can control the ball with you butt and you ear, doesn't matter. So I agree you can say he lost control before setting 2 feet a second time, but it's not conclusive. Because you can also argue about it. So I like the fact the call stand.

I just wished they were more consistent on letting call stand when nothing's conclusive.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

For me (and again as the rule is written now, not saying the rule is perfect) it's simple:



-On the Jesse James overturned TD, he catches the ball going to the ground, and the ball moves when it hits the ground . On replay, it's conclusive. You can't argue that the ball did not move. You can argue it didn't move much, but it did move when it hit the ground, he lost control of the ball because of the ground. Conclusive evidence = overturn the call.



-On the Clement's TD, the ball never hits the ground, it's in an awkward position but you can argue about wether he had control or not. Remember you can control the ball with you butt and you ear, doesn't matter. So I agree you can say he lost control before setting 2 feet a second time, but it's not conclusive. Because you can also argue about it. So I like the fact the call stand.



I just wished they were more consistent on letting call stand when nothing's conclusive.

Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

Maybe we can agree on your definition of the catch. Though I think it would need to be detailed just a little bit more.

Wouldn't it create quite a bump in fumbles called ?

Anyway I think the "control of the ball" part of the rule inherently introduces a time element. You control the ball because it doesn't move for a certain amount of time. Even if it's a fraction of a second. I don't see how the time element could be entirely dismissed.