Non-Colts thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Trader Joe
    DIET COKE!
    • Jan 2006
    • 46892

    Re: Non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by dal9
    nfl just released statement saying that simultaneous possession in the end zone (only) IS reviewable. but they say the refs got it right.
    LOL LOL LOL


    Comment

    • Slick Pinkham
      Member
      • Jan 2004
      • 10647

      Re: Non-Colts thread

      sort of:

      NFL sez: they missed the PI call, but the call on the reception was correctly upheld upon review.

      "Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

      "While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

      "When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

      "Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

      "Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

      "The result of the game is final."

      The NFL has issued its statement on last night’s Packers-Seahawks game, saying that Golden Tate should have been called for pass interference, but the result of the game will not be reversed.
      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

      • Slick Pinkham
        Member
        • Jan 2004
        • 10647

        Re: Non-Colts thread

        Really?

        Really?

        They need to look up the word "simultaneous" in the dictionary.

        It doesn't mean in this case "after somebody catches it and then after they roll around on the ground for a while, this is the first time to take a look, and thus if two people in fact have hands on the ball, that means it's simultaneous"
        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

        • dal9
          Can see thru wooden doors
          • Dec 2007
          • 17455

          Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by Trader Joe
          Nope. there is a clause in the CBA that players can walk if they feel their safety is being compromised.
          Nope on your nope.

          You can download the CBA here.

          http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...-2011-2020.pdf



          Quoting from page 22

          "Section 1. No Strike/Lockout: Except as otherwise provided in Article 47 (Union Security), Section 6, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim that a party has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the party will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts."
          Article 47, Section 6 (pasted below) involves "union security" which may sound like "player safety" to the uninformed, but actually involves the power of the union to compel all players to pay union dues. (Specifically, if a court holds in the future that the NFLPA can't compel payment of dues, the NFLPA can reopen the CBA negotations or begin a strike).


          Article 47, Section 6. Procedure for Enforcement:
          (a) Upon written notification to the Management Council by the NFLPA that a player has not paid any initiation fee, dues or the equivalent service fee in violation of Section 1 of this Article, the Management Council will within seven days consider the matter. If there is no resolution of the matter within seven days, then the Club will, upon notification of the NFLPA, suspend the player without pay. Such suspension will con-tinue until the NFLPA has notified the Club in writing that the suspended player has satisfied his obligation as contained in Section 1 of this Article. The parties hereby agree that suspension without pay is adopted as a substitute for and in lieu of discharge as the penalty for a violation of the union security clause of the Agreement and that no player will be discharged for a violation of that clause. The player’s contract will be tolled dur-ing the period of any such suspension. A copy of all notices required by this “Procedure for the Enforcement of the Union Security Agreement Between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA” will be simultaneously mailed to the player involved and the Management Council.
          (b) It is further agreed that the term “member in good standing” as used in this Article applies only to payment of dues or initiation fee and not any other factors involved in union discipline.
          (c) It is further agreed that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, if at any time in the term of the Agreement, any court or agency shall wholly or partially invalidate the provisions of this Article relating to Union Security, then the NFLPA may reopen this Agreement upon the giving of 10 days’ written notice, with reference solely
          to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will have an obligation to resume negotiations limited to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will be free to engage in whatever concerted or other action may be permitted by law in support of their positions.


          So unless there is something directly contradictory to this in the CBA (and I looked in the places where it might be), walking out is not an option

          edit: sorry for the messed up formatting
          Last edited by dal9; 09-25-2012, 12:58 PM.

          Comment

          • ECKrueger
            Boilermaker (TJL)
            • Oct 2007
            • 6098

            Re: Non-Colts thread

            I don't disagree with it being an INT, but I don't blame the refs for making the call. In real time you couldn't tell exactly who had it when. While it definitely looked like a pick in the replays I am not sure there was definite evidence. Like others have said too, I'm not sure the regular refs would've gotten it right. The OPI you can't argue though. That was obvious.

            Comment

            • Trader Joe
              DIET COKE!
              • Jan 2006
              • 46892

              Re: Non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by dal9
              Nope on your nope.

              You can download the CBA here.

              http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...-2011-2020.pdf



              Quoting from page 22 "Section 1. No Strike/Lockout: Except as otherwise provided in Article 47 (Union Security), Section 6, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim that a party has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the party will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts."

              Article 47, Section 6 (pasted below) involves "union security" which may sound like "player safety" to the uninformed, but actually involves the power of the union to compel all players to pay union dues. (Specifically, if a court holds in the future that the NFLPA can't compel payment of dues, the NFLPA can reopen the CBA negotations or begin a strike).



              Article 47, Section 6. Procedure for Enforcement:
              (a) Upon written notification to the Management Council by the NFLPA that a player has not paid any initiation fee, dues or the equivalent service fee in violation of Section 1 of this Article, the Management Council will within seven days consider the matter. If there is no resolution of the matter within seven days, then the Club will, upon notification of the NFLPA, suspend the player without pay. Such suspension will con-tinue until the NFLPA has notified the Club in writing that the suspended player has satisfied his obligation as contained in Section 1 of this Article. The parties hereby agree that suspension without pay is adopted as a substitute for and in lieu of discharge as the penalty for a violation of the union security clause of the Agreement and that no player will be discharged for a violation of that clause. The player’s contract will be tolled dur-ing the period of any such suspension. A copy of all notices required by this “Procedure for the Enforcement of the Union Security Agreement Between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA” will be simultaneously mailed to the player involved and the Management Council.
              (b) It is further agreed that the term “member in good standing” as used in this Article applies only to payment of dues or initiation fee and not any other factors involved in union discipline.
              (c) It is further agreed that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, if at any time in the term of the Agreement, any court or agency shall wholly or partially invalidate the provisions of this Article relating to Union Security, then the NFLPA may reopen this Agreement upon the giving of 10 days’ written notice, with reference solely
              to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will have an obligation to resume negotiations limited to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will be free to engage in whatever concerted or other action may be permitted by law in support of their positions.



              So unless there is something directly contradictory to this in the CBA (and I looked in the places where it might be), walking out is not an option

              edit: sorry for the messed up formatting
              I agree the clause you are referencing is not about this, but I find it hard to believe that the Union has no repercussions to the NFL if they believe that player safety is being compromised.


              Comment

              • dal9
                Can see thru wooden doors
                • Dec 2007
                • 17455

                Re: Non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by PurduePacer
                While it definitely looked like a pick in the replays I am not sure there was definite evidence.
                [head explodes]

                Comment

                • dal9
                  Can see thru wooden doors
                  • Dec 2007
                  • 17455

                  Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe
                  I agree the clause you are referencing is not about this, but I find it hard to believe that the Union has no repercussions to the NFL if they believe that player safety is being compromised.
                  I guess I don't know what to say to that, except "let me know if you (or DD) find it in the CBA."

                  Comment

                  • Trader Joe
                    DIET COKE!
                    • Jan 2006
                    • 46892

                    Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by dal9
                    I guess I don't know what to say to that, except "let me know if you (or DD) find it in the CBA."
                    I don't have time to look through the CBA, so I'm not gonna say you're wrong, I just find it hard to believe.


                    Also, DD, is now, claiming it was a catch. This is making my head hurt.


                    Comment

                    • Trader Joe
                      DIET COKE!
                      • Jan 2006
                      • 46892

                      Re: Non-Colts thread

                      I just don't see how anyone can watch that and say Tate got to the ball the same time as Jennings. It's just not even close IMO. In fact, to me it looks like Tate's arms are still moving toward the ball as Jennings already has it in his hands.


                      Comment

                      • Slick Pinkham
                        Member
                        • Jan 2004
                        • 10647

                        Re: Non-Colts thread

                        The only point I can fathom for striking players is to argue to a judge that the use replacement referees represent a drastic change in the work environment that could not have been anticipated at the time that the agreement was signed.

                        I don't think that would fly, since when the agreement was signed, the timeline for expiration of the last agreement with the officials was known to both parties.

                        Since the language is pretty specific, I don't see much wiggle room. A judge could declare striking players in violation of the CBA and grant the league major damages, such as a bigger cut of TV revenue.

                        A player's strike seems unworkable.

                        The fans have the only power to use. We are addicted to the product though. We are on crack and have to turn away from the crack until they make better crack. can we do that? I'm nearing the point where I think I can. I didn't tune in until the 4th Q last night, for example.
                        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

                        • Trader Joe
                          DIET COKE!
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 46892

                          Re: Non-Colts thread

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                          The only point I can fathom for striking players is to argue to a judge that the use of replacement referees represent a drastic change in the work environment and worker safety that could not have been anticipated at the time that the agreement was signed.

                          I don't think that would fly, since when the agreement was signed, the timeline for expiration of the last agreement with the officials was known to both parties.

                          Since the language is pretty specific, I don't see much wiggle room. A judge could declare striking players in violation of the CBA and grant the league major damages, such as a bigger cut of TV revenue.

                          A player's strike seems unworkable.

                          The fans have the only power to use. We are addicted to the product though.
                          I think at this point it is going to take an injury to a big time player, on a play that should have been prevented. I am thinking a head injury to a starting QB who is sliding. Or it's going to take a massive fight, both of which, based on what the refs have been missing pretty consistently (late hits or away from the play hits on QBs and receivers) seem kind of likely. It is clear this is not going to motivate Goodell otherwise we would already be seeing it in the news. First game of this week is on Thursday, which IMO already suggests that week 4 is going to be another week of this mess.


                          Comment

                          • Slick Pinkham
                            Member
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 10647

                            Re: Non-Colts thread

                            so the NFL needs its Ron Artest and its Malice at the Palace?

                            :bricks:
                            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

                            • Trader Joe
                              DIET COKE!
                              • Jan 2006
                              • 46892

                              Re: Non-Colts thread

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                              so the NFL needs its Ron Artest and its Malice at the Palace?

                              :bricks:
                              I mean doesn't it unfortunately seem like it is the path we are heading down? I don't see it ending with fans, but two teams brawling doesn't seem far fetched. How many times a game are we seeing people shoving, wrestling, punching? 15+? It sure seems like it and nothing ever gets called. They let them go all the way up until the ball is spotted. It is crazy.


                              Comment

                              • xBulletproof
                                I have a Member
                                • Jun 2010
                                • 4671

                                Re: Non-Colts thread

                                Dakich told me I am oversimplifying it by explaining that once he removed one hand from the ball, he relinquished possession. That makes it so that when he throws his arm back in there that it's no longer simultaneous.

                                Since when is using the rules oversimplifying?

                                Comment

                                Working...