Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Playoff Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Playoff Thread

    His 15 sec rant has made him the talk of the country today on every news outlet. Mission accomplished on his part
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      that was pretty classless too, to be honest

      We accepted it because he was ours and because it was part of the long-running ongoing give-and-take between Reggie and Spike Lee. He also kept his antics to an on-court-only self-motivational sideshow.

      If Reggie had gone off in on-camera interviews to a reporter, like Sherman did to Erin Andrews (and even 15 minutes later in his media session), I tend to think that we'd all think a bit less of Reggie for it.


      Remember his interview after the 8 in 8.9? "John Starks choked..."

      Comment


      • Re: Playoff Thread

        Probably not a good idea to have it out the day before the game was played unless it was a deliberate jinx(then well played)

        http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...0034--nfl.html

        There is still time left to purchase New England’s AFC championship t-shirts. All any fan needs to do is get online, purchase an airline ticket to a third-world country and starting searching for that memorabilia.

        According to the Boston Herald, Modell’s Sporting Goods spent $500,000 to have AFC championship clothing to celebrate New England advancing to the Super Bowl in select stores. In fact, Rick Friedland tweeted a picture of a Patriots t-shirt he saw for sale at a Modell’s in New York City.

        @darrenrovell Modell's in NYC already knows the Patriots won tomorrow... #thatdidnthappen pic.twitter.com/Kg3sHZAH40
        — Rick Friedland (@rickfriedland) January 18, 2014
        Spoiler alert: New England did not win.

        Leagues print gear for both teams every year (the hats and shirts the Broncos were wearing minutes after the game were printed ahead of time, obviously, and the Patriots would have had the same gear if they won), but Modell's wanted the merchandise ready for fans the moment the game ended and paid for it. Denver defeated New England, 26-16, in the championship game, leaving the department store with plenty of stuff nobody wants to buy.

        “We took a tremendous risk, but you know what? People expect us to have the merchandise,” a source told the Boston Herald prior to the game. “We printed up everything: hats, shirts, T-shirts, novelties, pennants — you name it — for men, women, kids.”
        That unsold merchandise will be donated to a third-world country.

        “We’re not allowed to sell it,” a source told the Boston Herald.
        This is probably not the charitable effort New England wants to be identified with.

        Comment


        • Re: Playoff Thread

          Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
          His 15 sec rant has made him the talk of the country today on every news outlet. Mission accomplished on his part
          Yeah, he's a genius. A cornerback hasn't received this much attention since Deion Sanders back in the day. Peyton Manning just beat the Pats to go to the Super Bowl a mere two years after a vicious injury.....and it's not even the main story! Sherman definitely succeeded in grabbing attention. I'd take 10 Shermans on my team.

          Comment


          • Re: Playoff Thread

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            Have to admit I'm surprised it wasn't one of the Pats WAGs that did this

            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...alib/#comments
            What a douche. The guy can coach his *** off, but he's still a douche. Hopefully the league sends him back a video of all the pick plays the Pats run with the title "STFU."
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              What a douche. The guy can coach his *** off, but he's still a douche. Hopefully the league sends him back a video of all the pick plays the Pats run with the title "STFU."
              If it was anyone but Welker I'd say he has a point but what about Welker screams "enforcer" especially since he's been battling concussions for a while now.

              And the Sherman thing was calculated the more I think about it which I think is a good thing for the Broncos being under the radar(well as under the radar as one can be for an SB team)

              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                Denver has been running those pick plays all season, but it's not like their receivers have been injuring a ton of defenders in the process. Talib is a great player, but he just seems a bit feeble for an NFL defender. This is the second straight postseason where he's had to leave the AFC Championship Game because of injury. If getting hit high by Wes Welker takes you out, then odds are that you're going to have trouble consistently staying healthy in the NFL.

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  Welker didn't run a pick play. A pick play is where you get in the way, make the guy change his route a little, brush him, something like that. This was a cross-body block, just before the ball arrived.

                  Was it offensive pass interference? Yes.
                  Was it intentional play to hurt somebody? I doubt it.
                  Was it just another pick play? No. You set a pick by running in a guy's way on your route, but not by initiating contact while not running a route.
                  Did BB have anything to gain by even mentioning it? No way. Should have said nothing.



                  another angle:



                  Welker veered off his line into Talib from the side. It wasn't two players running headlong into one another. Not only that, Welker was never even looking back at the QB but was looking at Talib the whole time. His role was to block Talib but IMO he made a mistake and threw the block a second early.

                  So I think that BB should have indeed chosen to STFU. You can't guess intent and it's not like Welker dove for the knees.

                  But it 100% it should have been called a penalty. This was a penalty on #47 running into #52 on a more typical pick play on the Patriots drive just before. Hoomanawanui ran into a guy without leaving his feet. OPI Penalty. Deserved. But a lot less egregious.



                  We cannot read Welker's mind as to WHY he threw an illegal block like that. Talib’s reaction shows that, at minimum, he immediately felt that it was a dirty play.

                  Clearly it was illegal, but I’d give Wes the benefit of the doubt as to his intent, mainly because he does not (to my knowledge) have that reputation, and Fox does not have a reputation for coaching crap like that. If it were a turd like Jeff Fisher we'd know for sure (Pats fans remember Fisher openly celebrating a take-out hit on Rodney Harrison, new Years eve 2006). Harrison missed all of the 2006 postseason, including the loss to the Colts in the AFCCG. http://www.pro-football-reference.co.../gamelog/post/

                  Several Patriots saw Titans head coach Jeff Fisher wink and smile toward the field after the Harrison injury. Typically level-headed Tedy Bruschi flew into a rage and had to be restrained from entering the Titans bench area by teammates and by a game official.
                  Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-21-2014, 12:08 PM.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Playoff Thread

                    Totally agree with Slick ^ Penalty for sure, but not worth complaining about really.

                    I'm definitely rooting for Sherman and the Seahawks now. I love the actual honest answers in post games. Someone may be a douche in actuality, but I'd rather know that then hear some standard responses.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Playoff Thread

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Welker didn't run a pick play. A pick play is where you get in the way, make the guy change his route a little, brush him, something like that. This was a cross-body block, just before the ball arrived.
                      Sounds like the only thing that you're saying is different than a pick play and Welker's play is how hard Welker hit the defender.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoff Thread

                        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                        I mean Sherman is the best CB in football. I have no problem with him talking and being cocky.
                        I have no prob with Sherman. He backs it up on the field and has no off the field issues. Plus he's in the same fraternity as me, so I'm kinda biased lol
                        Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Sounds like the only thing that you're saying is different than a pick play and Welker's play is how hard Welker hit the defender.
                          other things that I'm saying are different than a pick play:

                          1) leaving your feet to throw an illegal block
                          2) altering your passing route to throw that block
                          3) not even pretending to be a receiver on the play

                          It was not a pick play but a play in which a receiver is primed to throw a downfield block, but does so too early to be legal.

                          To be honest though, if they aren't calling it then it's very smart to keep doing it. You see the exact same tactic on screen passes, when blockers starts barreling over defenders before the receiver even catches the ball. Denver did that on a couple of occasions with no OPI call, and were wise to keep doing it. The Patriots might have done the same, I don't know.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-21-2014, 12:48 PM.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Playoff Thread

                            I don't care for Erin Andrews either but I saw nothing wrong with how she reacted to Sherman's rant

                            http://www.jeffpearlman.com/erin-and...thout-the-ped/

                            Erin Andrews, like Alex Rodriguez
                            Posted on January 20, 2014
                            Screen Shot 2014-01-20 at 12.42.13 PMSo last night, while sitting in bed, I thought more and more about Richard Sherman. I hated how he behaved. Absolutely hated it. But, as I pondered the whole scenario, I kept returning to something else. An entirely separate issue.

                            Namely, Erin Andrews.

                            The Fox sideline reporter, who stood there as Sherman blathered away, makes a reported $800,000 annually, and has a net worth—after advertising—of $3 million. In the immediate aftermath of the Sherman outburst, I offered Andrews a slight Twitter compliment, saying she handled things pretty well. Then, I watched again. And again. Um, I was wrong.

                            Erin Andrews was a deer in headlights. She did not know what to do or what to say or how to respond. Someone in the control booth clearly told her to send things away from Sherman—and she did. In short, she wasn’t to be trusted with the situation, and Fox’s heads knew it. As much as America responded negatively to Sherman, he was also—after a must-see game—must-see television. Why was he so angry? How far did this go back? Did it stem from something? Would he confront Crabtree afterward?

                            Nothing.

                            Good reporters—even good television sideline reporters—are trusted to interview. To probe. To dig. To report. They do so subtly, yes, and in limited doses. But they do, indeed, do so. Think Bonnie Bernstein back in the day. Think Pam Oliver at her best. Think Jim Gray.

                            Andrews, however, was not signed away from ESPN (by Fox) because she’s a high-caliber reporter, or because she possesses a unique view of the game, or incredible knowledge. She was hired away from ESPN (by Fox) because guys think she’s hot.

                            There is no debating this point.

                            We all know it to be true. Even (I’m guessing) Erin Andrews.

                            The thing is, Erin Andrews has done nothing wrong. She was born pretty, she was a college athlete, she speaks well and she likes sports. If someone wants to pay her huge amounts of money for that, well, so be it. She’s the Kardashian of televised sports—and being a Kardashian has worked out pretty well for the actual Kardashians. The problem comes when something like the Richard Sherman situation arises, and Fox’s sideline star looks overwhelmed and out of her league and lost. Bonnie Bernstein (the gold standard, in my opinion), fires right back—hard. So does Jim Gray—confrontational, edgy, oft-hated—but a guy who doesn’t digest an athlete’s nonsense with an crooked smile and a “Back to you, Troy …”

                            Sigh.

                            To me, it’s the crime committed by the networks against legitimate female reporters: If you’re not pretty and perky and young, you—with rare exception—have no shot. We’ve come so far in this field, as far as diversity, and, yet, not as far as one would think. Women walk the sidelines and tell us stories, but they’d better be pretty and busty enough to keep a guy’s interest, pre-Budweiser commercial. Otherwise, no thank you. Find a radio gig, m’am.

                            Here’s the problem, if you’re Fox: Erin Andrews makes a ton of money for someone who’s not especially good at her job. There are now—in her wake—dozens of similarly blonde, similarly pretty, similarly perky reporters working the TV sports circuit. They’re younger than Erin Andrews, fresher than Erin Andrews, probably even more talented than Erin Andrews. Before long (if it hasn’t already happened), Fox will realize it surrendered a ton of dough for a ballplayer who did her best work at ESPN, just as ARod did his best work in Seattle. Her prime was 2008.

                            See, surface beauty only travels so far before people demand something more to stay tuned. Sports fans, ultimately, want insight and professionalism and high-caliber questions. They want follow-up reporting.

                            Or, sadly, they want 28 and wrinkle-free.

                            Sigh.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              other things that I'm saying are different than a pick play:

                              1) leaving your feet to throw an illegal block
                              2) altering your passing route to throw that block
                              3) not even pretending to be a receiver on the play

                              It was not a pick play but a play in which a receiver is primed to throw a downfield block, but does so too early to be legal.

                              To be honest though, if they aren't calling it then it's very smart to keep doing it. You see the exact same tactic on screen passes, when blockers starts barreling over defenders before the receiver even catches the ball. Denver did that on a couple of occasions with no OPI call, and were wise to keep doing it. The Patriots might have done the same, I don't know.
                              2 & 3 are applicable on pretty much every pick play as well. They don't have to alter their routes all that much, because the route is designed to go after the defender, but offensive players still change their course in order to get a piece/get in the way of the defender.

                              EDIT:
                              The New England Patriots lost a critical component of their defense in the second quarter Sunday when Denver wide receiver Wes Welker wiped out cornerback Aqib Talib. Though the play resulted in an incompletion, Welker easily could have drawn an offensive pass interference penalty — earlier, the Patriots were flagged for running a pick play, as TE Michael Hoomanawanui began blocking downfield before Tom Brady completed a pass attempt.
                              http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/19/aqib-ta...ts-wes-welker/
                              Last edited by Since86; 01-21-2014, 01:12 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoff Thread

                                The Hoomanawanui play was in the 3rd gif I posted earlier. Notice that "Hooman" (#47) doesn't leave his feet, doesn't stop running his route, his feet never even stop moving, he has head head up the whole time looking back at the QB, and yes he does bump chests with the linebacker. Thus it was properly called offensive pass interference.

                                If you are saying it was somewhat similar to the Welker play, I'd agree. In that was pass interference, though less obvious, but it was actually called that way. The point was that the far more obvious version was not flagged at all, the defender was hurt on the play, and the injury as well as the actual non-call may have changed the outcome of the game.

                                2nd and 19 at their own 9, if the penalty is called
                                vs.
                                3rd and 9 at their own 19

                                They completed a pass to Welker on 3rd and 9, drove the field and scored a TD to go up 10-0.

                                Maybe they would have done the same given 2nd-and-19, deep in their own territory, true.

                                Now look at the game situation on the call on Hoomanawanui. It erased an 8 yard gain to the 25 yard line on a pass on 3rd and 10 to Collie. No call and it would have been 4th and 2, a 42 yard FG to tie the score at 3 was in order. But... with the play called (properly) it became 3rd and 20 at the 43 and a punt resulted.

                                If the two plays are both no-calls, the Patriots gain 3 points (>80% certainty that Gostkowski makes a 42 yarder, at altitude).

                                If the two plays are both called OPI, there's a pretty decent chance that Denver's first TD doesn't happen.

                                The inability to make two calls the same way is annoying. It's not at all related to Belichick's opinion (misguided, I think) that there was intent to injure. It's just a gripe about calling obvious calls the same way.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X