FOX (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-13-FOX.html)
CBS early (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-13-CBS1.html)
CBS late (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-13-CBS2.html)
Titans/Lions, Seahawks/Cowboys and the Eagles game on Thanksgiving
On Sunday, Philly gets Giants/taterskins and Colts/Browns at 1, then Steelers/Patriots at 4...
taterskins lost
Packers lost
Saints lost
The Falcons might lose at San Diego
The loser of the Bears/Vikings game will be 6-6
Pretty much good news if you're in the 1% still rooting for the playoffs. They'll still have Dallas, Washington, Atlanta and the CHI/MIN winner ahead of them...
CBS (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-14-CBS.html)
FOX early (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-14-FOX1.html)
FOX late (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-14-FOX2.html)
Chargers beating the Raiders in tonight's meaningless game
Quote from: BigEd76 on December 04, 2008, 10:21:01 PM
Chargers beating the Raiders in tonight's meaningless game
if your fantasy playoff life was on the line you would not be saying this
right now i have cromartie vs lt and im only down 10.60 to 7
Lions lose and fall to 0-13, heading to Indy next week. Will the Colts be favored by 3 touchdowns?
Houston goes down the field and kicks a FG at the gun to knock Green Bay out of the playoffs
Chicago stays 1 game behind Minnesota after beating Jacksonville
Tennessee goes to 12-1 after beating Cleveland
If Dallas and Washington lose their games, the Eagles will be only 1/2 game out of the #6 seed.
hahahahahahaahha romo INT!! farg YOU farg YOU farg YOU
THANK YOU ROMO!!!!!!!!
Quote from: mussa on December 07, 2008, 04:19:11 PM
hahahahahahaahha romo INT!! farg YOU farg YOU farg YOU
Ha. Mr. Clutch just threw another, but this one was returned for a TD.
Oh yeah...FARG DALLAS!
overrated. romo is chokemaster
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f308/johnfromphilly/Sports_SeahawksVsCowboys2.jpg)
The Giants, Cardinals and Titans clinched their divisions today, San Francisco was officially eliminated, and Green Bay needs a 3-way 8-8 tie in the division to stay alive.
Went to NFL.com looking for some Steelers/Cowboys pics... came across something better.
(http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/2008/09000d5d80d190e9_gallery_600.jpg)
Quote from: EagleFeva on December 08, 2008, 07:51:35 AM
Went to NFL.com looking for some Steelers/Cowboys pics... came across something better.
(http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/2008/09000d5d80d190e9_gallery_600.jpg)
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/digital-short-j-in-my-pants/866262/
FOX (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-15-FOX.html)
CBS early (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-15-CBS1.html)
CBS late (http://the506.com/nflmaps/2008-15-CBS2.html)
Gould hits a FG with no time left then hits another one in OT. The Saints are pretty much out now...
St. Louis, in something like only the 2nd or 3rd time since the Rams moved here, won't be broadcasting the excitement that is known as Seattle - St. Louis.
My question is, will they show an alternate game, or do they have to show an infomercial or some crap?
Glad I don't live there.
Well, it's no Baltimore, that's for sure.
i think it depends on if the network the game is on has the doubleheader or not
if the game is on the channel showing only one game...i am pretty the network can choose a game from either time slot to show instead
you'll get Tampa Bay/Atlanta instead
hmmm....just noticed that Philly switched to that game too. We're not stuck with taterskins/Bengals anymore...
Kearse just had a sack/fumble
He has 3.5 on the year. But it was Jim Johnson's fault, right?
lots of close games today. Even the Lions are tied at Indy
Tampa is driving for the tying FG or go-ahead TD w/ 5 mins left
f'ing matt bryant....wide left, Falcons still up 10-7 with 3 mins left
Tampa blocks the punt and returns it to the 22 with 2 mins left!
Now at the 11....2:00 warning
Bryant barely makes the tying FG
headed to OT
Atlanta wins it in OT
Falcons and Bucs are both 9-5
Tampa = home vs Chargers and Raiders
Atlanta = at Vikings, home vs Rams
need a Childress win next week or the Eagles are done
I've enjoyed watching the Falcons this year but I was cheering hard for the Bucs today ...dam it.
Chargers down 21-10 with 1:20 left in the game and they're going to win it 22-21
Ravens 9 Steelers 3 just over 1 minute left, and Harbaugh has the prevent out or the D just sucks, steelers will score here
amazing game
basically an old school NFC East game
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on December 14, 2008, 07:14:16 PM
Ravens 9 Steelers 3 just over 1 minute left, and Harbaugh has the prevent out or the D just sucks, steelers will score here
Yep. That personal foul penalty on Pittsburgh may just set Baltimore back up, though.
Refs got two calls incorrect AFTER instant replay. Both went against Baltimore.
ova
The coaches weren't 100% sure after the game. It makes sense that if the feet are down in the end zone, the ball doesn't have to cross the goal line. The ball should only have to cross the goal line if your body isn't in the end zone.
But I don't think that is the rule, and it is stupid that it isn't.
of course its not a dumb rule...the goaline is not a yardline its the same thing as a sideline or an endline
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 14, 2008, 08:19:27 PM
of course its not a dumb rule...the goaline is not a yardline its the same thing as a sideline or an endline
You have this backward - the only reason the rule makes sense is because the goal line is a yard line and not a boundary. Progress on the field is always measured by the position of the ball, while out of bounds is based on the position of the body.
Quote from: Cerevant on December 15, 2008, 08:07:23 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 14, 2008, 08:19:27 PM
of course its not a dumb rule...the goaline is not a yardline its the same thing as a sideline or an endline
You have this backward - the only reason the rule makes sense is because the goal line is a yard line and not a boundary. Progress on the field is always measured by the position of the ball, while out of bounds is based on the position of the body.
negative chief...there is no zero yardline...it goes by the ball on yard markers so you know where to spot it for the next play...and there is no next play when youre over the goal line
when its a line whether end side or goal it goes by the body
stick to curling
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 15, 2008, 08:14:45 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 15, 2008, 08:07:23 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 14, 2008, 08:19:27 PM
of course its not a dumb rule...the goaline is not a yardline its the same thing as a sideline or an endline
You have this backward - the only reason the rule makes sense is because the goal line is a yard line and not a boundary. Progress on the field is always measured by the position of the ball, while out of bounds is based on the position of the body.
negative chief...there is no zero yardline...it goes by the ball on yard markers so you know where to spot it for the next play...and there is no next play when youre over the goal line
when its a line whether end side or goal it goes by the body
stick to curling
The Canadian is correct. If it goes by the body, then why, when a player falls over the goal line but his feet are on the one, isn't it marked at the one? Boundries are sidelines and the back of the endzone. The goal line is a yard marker. The end zone is still in the field of play. The rule specifies that the
ball must cross the plane of the goal line. It didn't, and the refs screwed it up.
Tom Jackson and Chris Berman explained it this morning. I give Baltimore and guys like Ray Lewis credit though. They didn't cry about it and blame the refs, saying that wasn't what cost the game. Although I disagree, and would have like to have seen if the Steelers would have gone for the tie or the win.
Quote from: shorebird on December 15, 2008, 08:49:27 AM
The Canadian is correct. If it goes by the body, then why, when a player falls over the goal line but his feet are on the one, isn't it marked at the one? Boundries are sidelines and the back of the endzone. The goal line is a yard marker. The end zone is still in the field of play. The rule specifies that the ball must cross the plane of the goal line. It didn't, and the refs screwed it up.
Tom Jackson and Chris Berman explained it this morning. I give Baltimore and guys like Ray Lewis credit though. They didn't cry about it and blame the refs, saying that wasn't what cost the game. Although I disagree, and would have like to have seen if the Steelers would have gone for the tie or the win.
You guys are right that the ball is what determines a TD, not the player's body... but the ball doesn't have to
cross the plane into the end zone. Think of the goal line extending upward, the ball has to only touch or "break" the front of the goal line... and it did do that in Holmes' possession, ever so slightly. That was a TD.
On the replays I couldn't really tell, it was kinda' blurred, so it would be inconclusive evidence. Also, that was not the explaination the refs gave on the field. They stated that his feet were in the end zone, which doesn't have anything to do with the rule.
The only thing I remember them talking about his feet were if they were on the ground while having possession... but yeah, you're right, It doesn't matter where his feet were as long as the ball broke the plane.
Need to be big Vikings and Chargers fans next week. I really like Minnesota's chances at home vs ATL. No idea what to expect from either Tampa or SD in that game.
the ref totally botched the explanation when talking about the feet. in fact, he didn't talk about the ball in relation to the goal line at all. but it certainly appears that the tip of the ball broke the plane, i don't have a problem with that being over turned.
i wouldn't have a problem with it being a TD if that's what was called on the field, but the whole purpose of instant replay is that they can reverse a call if there is absolute conclusive evidence on film. with as many people as there are today still complaining about it, it obviously was not conclusive. defeats the whole purpose of the system.
and yeah why the hell was the ref even talking about the guys feet? there was some dumb steelers fan girl at my house yelling about how his feet were in the endzone, and then i told her how dumb she was. then the ref goes and basically reinforced what she was saying.
Haha.. you're dumber than a dumb steelers fan girl
Quote from: EagleFeva on December 15, 2008, 09:17:06 AM
Quote from: shorebird on December 15, 2008, 08:49:27 AM
The Canadian is correct. If it goes by the body, then why, when a player falls over the goal line but his feet are on the one, isn't it marked at the one? Boundries are sidelines and the back of the endzone. The goal line is a yard marker. The end zone is still in the field of play. The rule specifies that the ball must cross the plane of the goal line. It didn't, and the refs screwed it up.
Tom Jackson and Chris Berman explained it this morning. I give Baltimore and guys like Ray Lewis credit though. They didn't cry about it and blame the refs, saying that wasn't what cost the game. Although I disagree, and would have like to have seen if the Steelers would have gone for the tie or the win.
You guys are right that the ball is what determines a TD, not the player's body... but the ball doesn't have to cross the plane into the end zone. Think of the goal line extending upward, the ball has to only touch or "break" the front of the goal line... and it did do that in Holmes' possession, ever so slightly. That was a TD.
Exactly. In fact, the plane extends out of bounds, hence the "launch rule" that says the ball doesn't even need to be inside the pylon to score.
Quote from: phattymatty on December 15, 2008, 11:11:07 AM
i wouldn't have a problem with it being a TD if that's what was called on the field, but the whole purpose of instant replay is that they can reverse a call if there is absolute conclusive evidence on film. with as many people as there are today still complaining about it, it obviously was not conclusive. defeats the whole purpose of the system.
and yeah why the hell was the ref even talking about the guys feet? there was some dumb steelers fan girl at my house yelling about how his feet were in the endzone, and then i told her how dumb she was. then the ref goes and basically reinforced what she was saying.
The ref was saying his feet were down while the ball was in the end zone. It's an important distinction to make since you need two feet down in order to establish possession. SO he was saying Holmes had two feet down, thus establishing possession, WHILE the ball was in the end zone.
I suppose it's only a minor detail that the call was incorrect. There was 0 way you could tell conclusively he was in with possession.
BTW Glen Macnow is a farging retard. He's saying his feet were in so he was in. Glen Macnow=dumb steelers girl?
0 way to tell? i can easily look at that one camera angle down the goal line and see that he caught the ball and the ball broke the plane.
magic eyes
don't get fresh
Quote from: SunMo on December 15, 2008, 11:26:34 AM
0 way to tell? i can easily look at that one camera angle down the goal line and see that he caught the ball and the ball broke the plane.
His feet weren't on the ground while the ball was in the end zone. I thought there was absolutely no way you could see he had possession (both feet were down) AND the ball was across the plane. I just didn't see it.
If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down. As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon). I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.
I, for one, am sad for John Harbaugh.
Quote from: Father Demon on December 15, 2008, 11:57:14 AM
If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down. As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon). I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.
Ok, people are missing the point.
In order to ESTABLISH possession, at some point you need to have two feet down. You can launch yourself into the end zone because you've already established possession. I'm not saying that in order for a play to be a TD you need to have two feet in the end zone. I'm saying in order for it to be a touchdown you need to have already established possession, and in order to establish possession you must FIRST get two feet down, in the end zone or elsewhere. Holmes needed to have two feet down and THEN have the ball cross the goal line. Where the two feet were is irrelevant. I think the ball was across the goal line for a split second while in Holmes' hands, BUT I didn't think he had established possession yet (his two feet hadn't been down with the ball under control). By the time the two feet got down and possession was established, his momentum had carried him back to the 1.
Quote from: Eagles_Legendz on December 15, 2008, 11:23:58 AM
The ref was saying his feet were down while the ball was in the end zone. It's an important distinction to make since you need two feet down in order to establish possession. SO he was saying Holmes had two feet down, thus establishing possession, WHILE the ball was in the end zone.
That makes sense, if thats really what he meant. I think when your overturning a call, you might want to be a little more clear on why.
Quote from: Father Demon on December 15, 2008, 11:57:14 AM
If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down. As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon). I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.
I think making a catch is different from running into the end zone and diving while sticking the ball out. When your making a catch, you have to have both feet inbounds to establish possesion. When your running with the ball you have already established possesion.
It's six to one half a dozen to the other as to wether or not the ball broke the plane. The Ref seems to think it did. Imo, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call made on the field.
Quote from: FastFreddie on December 15, 2008, 12:04:23 PM
I, for one, am sad for John Harbaugh.
Hahahaha. I can't remember the last time I laughed at a post of yours, but this was funny.
Quote from: shorebird on December 15, 2008, 12:11:02 PM
Quote from: Eagles_Legendz on December 15, 2008, 11:23:58 AM
The ref was saying his feet were down while the ball was in the end zone. It's an important distinction to make since you need two feet down in order to establish possession. SO he was saying Holmes had two feet down, thus establishing possession, WHILE the ball was in the end zone.
That makes sense, if thats really what he meant. I think when your overturning a call, you might want to be a little more clear on why.
Quote from: Father Demon on December 15, 2008, 11:57:14 AM
If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down. As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon). I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.
I think making a catch is different from running into the end zone and diving while sticking the ball out. When your making a catch, you have to have both feet inbounds to establish possesion. When your running with the ball you have already established possesion.
It's six to one half a dozen to the other as to wether or not the ball broke the plane. The Ref seems to think it did. Imo, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call made on the field.
Exactly, and I agree.
whats even dumber was pitt calling a timeout with 26 seconds left. bodymore had some to's, but pitt should have burned the clock down to 1 second for a 4th down play from the 1 after the ball was spotted short of the td.
of course, it didnt end up mattering, but never the less, dont these idiot nfl teams know how to clock manage properly?
they didn't call timeout, the clock was stopped for the review
Quote from: rjs246 on December 15, 2008, 12:12:53 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on December 15, 2008, 12:04:23 PM
I, for one, am sad for John Harbaugh.
Hahahaha. I can't remember the last time I laughed at a post of yours, but this was funny.
Monday morning is a hell of a time to hit the sauce, man.
BTW, LOL @ Flacco trying to run the hurry-up at the end of the game last night. He made Donovan McNabb look cool under pressure.
Quote from: SunMo on December 15, 2008, 12:47:30 PM
they didn't call timeout, the clock was stopped for the review
rofl was looking at the sidelines and called a to, then they went to the review.
Quote from: Father Demon on December 15, 2008, 11:57:14 AM
If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down. As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon). I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.
Ack...looks like the rules have changed a bit. I clearly remember the launch rule being discussed after a Buckhalter touchdown, but up until 2007, some part of the player had to be in bounds. After 2007, either the ball had to break the plane in bounds, or it had to be in possession of a player in the end zone (ie: pass to player falling out of bounds who got his feet down in bounds). Still, the ball has to be beyond the goal line.
Note that this is from an analysis confirmed by Hochuli (http://www.east-coast-bias.com/2007/10/plane-of-goal-line.html).
Quote from: shorebird on December 15, 2008, 08:49:27 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 15, 2008, 08:14:45 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 15, 2008, 08:07:23 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 14, 2008, 08:19:27 PM
of course its not a dumb rule...the goaline is not a yardline its the same thing as a sideline or an endline
You have this backward - the only reason the rule makes sense is because the goal line is a yard line and not a boundary. Progress on the field is always measured by the position of the ball, while out of bounds is based on the position of the body.
negative chief...there is no zero yardline...it goes by the ball on yard markers so you know where to spot it for the next play...and there is no next play when youre over the goal line
when its a line whether end side or goal it goes by the body
stick to curling
The Canadian is correct. If it goes by the body, then why, when a player falls over the goal line but his feet are on the one, isn't it marked at the one? Boundries are sidelines and the back of the endzone. The goal line is a yard marker. The end zone is still in the field of play. The rule specifies that the ball must cross the plane of the goal line. It didn't, and the refs screwed it up.
Tom Jackson and Chris Berman explained it this morning. I give Baltimore and guys like Ray Lewis credit though. They didn't cry about it and blame the refs, saying that wasn't what cost the game. Although I disagree, and would have like to have seen if the Steelers would have gone for the tie or the win.
If the rule is the ball has to cross the goal line no matter what, then that is the rule and the call was incorrect. But that is a stupid rule. 2 feet down in the end zone means the body is in the end zone, and the ball is classified as part of the body when possessed. If you have control of the ball and your body is in the end zone, then the ball which is possessed by your hands should also be counted as being in the end zone.
Now, I'll reiterate that I know the rule is the ball has to cross the goal line. Thus making that all moot. But again my point stands that it is a stupid rule. The same applies to sticking the nose of the ball over the goal line. It makes much more sense to have last night's possession count as a TD than simply sticking a nose of a football over a goal line. At least a player got his god damn body into the end zone, regardless of the ball.
It's not a stupid rule, everywere on field the line of scrimmage is marked by the position of the ball, why should it be different in or close to the end zone?
Not true. If you catch the ball going forward and are knocked backwards then the ball is spotted where you caught it with forward progress.
In other words if that play yesterday was not on the goal line and it was just for a first down, then by rule that would have been a first down, because that is where your feet are. It is only in the end zone where that applies.
Quote from: King Cole on December 15, 2008, 11:44:40 PM
Not true. If you catch the ball going forward and are knocked backwards then the ball is spotted where you caught it with forward progress.
In other words if that play yesterday was not on the goal line and it was just for a first down, then by rule that would have been a first down, because that is where your feet are. It is only in the end zone where that applies.
No, moron. It is the forward progress of the ball. Field position is always determined by the position of the ball.
Quote from: King Cole on December 15, 2008, 11:44:40 PM
Not true. If you catch the ball going forward and are knocked backwards then the ball is spotted where you caught it with forward progress.
In other words if that play yesterday was not on the goal line and it was just for a first down, then by rule that would have been a first down, because that is where your feet are. It is only in the end zone where that applies.
What, the
"only in the endzone rule?" Never heard of that one before.
Stop making shtein up, you are wrong, admit it.
As I am prone to do now. After last night, seeing that play form more angles, and seeing the tape stopped right at the point of the catch, and then a line drawn by the espn video crew from the goal line to the position of the ball, I have to say that it looks like the very point of the ball was just at the goal line. How the hell the ref saw that reviewing it on the sideline though, I don't know.
There was also two replays from overhead, and on one of them that had a pretty good angle directly overhead, it again looked like the ball just barely got to the goaline.
I think they got the call right for the wrong reason. I think the ref called it as if the ball were out of bounds (possession in the end zone) but missed the need for the ball to be past the goal line.
Let's talk about this call some more. Seriously, the insight that you're all providing is magical for my rage problems.
Let's talk about your rage problem over us disscussing the play of the week, that has been replayed and talked about for the last two days in the national media.
My advice, self medication. Doctors hardly ever give you good enough shtein. And if they do, you still must add alcohol to the mix.
But really what matters in this situation? Were his feet in? Did the ball break the plain? Did the ref explain the call well enough? I NEED ANSWERS.
If Holmes didn't come from the slow Big Ten, he would have made this call a non-issue.
I am sensing sarcasm.
ha
he hi ho hum
Are the Colts back? They have been sneaking up on Tennesse with a 7 game win streak for a 10-4 rcord after starting 3-4 with Manning missing the entire pre-season. A win tonght vs the Steelers would put them in the playoffs.
colts have beaten baltimore new england and pittsburgh this year...id say they never left
No one was saying that halfway through the season. The Baltimore game was in the first half of the season, and they beat New England by 3 pts. New England imo, isnt' as good as everyone thinks. They lost to Miami and San Diego. Friggen' Miami barely beat the Radiers.
They started the season at 3-4. How can you say they never left? lol!!
A lot of us thought the Eagles season was over when they were 5-4-1.
lol @ comparing the eagles to a superbowl winning team quarterbacked by peyton manning...just stop
the colts got off to a "slow" start but they never went anywhere
and last time i looked miami was a division leader
Additionally at the beginning of the season, Manning was still recovering from whatever ailed him. He was a lot lighter than his normal playing weight.
I don't know how or why, but Miami has been good this season.
They've been good yes, but they still just barely beat the Raiders. They aren't that good.
what team this year hasnt either lost to or struggled against a bad team?
Any given Sunday....the Lions almost beat the Colts too