Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 130

Thread: The NFL

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    The 49ers were moving the ball on their first possession. They had the ball when the lights went out. Their drive stalled after power was restored.

    That's a fact. You can check it.
    The power outage occurred 1:30 into the thrid qtr. Allow 20-30 seconds for the kick return. That gives the 49ers a little over 1 minute to build momentum. Hardly what I would consider game changing. The play preceding the outage was a sack, meaning they had maybe 30-45 seconds to establish momentum. Yes, they had success on one play. That does not mean they turned the game around.


    That's also speculation. You don't know what would have happened if the 49ers had continued on offense without the power failure. They may have gone on for a score, or they may have punted. Tell me what people did, not what you think they may have done.
    Of course it is specualtion. We're speculating that the momentum the Ravens had in the 2nd period would have carried over to the 3rd. You are speculating that it would not have. If anything, you may be being more speculative than us.

    The issue after the power outage was the 49er offense vs the Ravens defense. When play resumed, the Ravens defense stopped the 49ers. If there was a momentum shift, why didn't it happen right then? You can make a better case that the 49ers offense stalled after the stoppage.
    The Ravens had stopped them before the outage with a 6 yard sack, creating a difficult conversion opportunity for the 49ers. But I do believe the break gave teh 49ers the opportunity to regroup, first defensively, than on offense.

    The penalty would have been dubious (as Eddhead states) if it was a 15 yarder - roughing the kicker. Running into the kicker is incidental contact. You have to allow the kicker a place to land. That's the rule.
    A. It was not clear to me that me made contact with the kicker. It looked like he may have slid under his leg
    B. It also appeared that he may have been blocked into that direction in which case contact is moot, and it is not a foul

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    Of course it is specualtion. We're speculating that the momentum the Ravens had in the 2nd period would have carried over to the 3rd. You are speculating that it would not have. If anything, you may be being more speculative than us.
    Speak for yourself. Irish said he was certain.

    I said what MAY HAVE happened - that the 49ers MAY HAVE continued the drive, or they MAY HAVE punted anyway. How is that speculation? It's one or the other.

    A. It was not clear to me that me made contact with the kicker. It looked like he may have slid under his leg
    That's incidental contact. He can't undercut him. It's the rule; no one questioned it. If he ran into Akers, it would have been 15 yards.

    It also appeared that he may have been blocked into that direction in which case contact is moot, and it is not a foul
    Check the tape. He dove under Akers.

  3. #33

    Default

    Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    That's incidental contact. He can't undercut him. It's the rule; no one questioned it. If he ran into Akers, it would have been 15 yards.

    Check the tape. He dove under Akers.
    I could not find the tape, but in looking, I did find this:
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/ktlincoln/di...the-super-bowl

    Also, this:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon...p-gif/1889289/

    Replays showed Brown rolling into Akers after the attempt, which would justify the five-yard penalty. A closer review of the clip shows that Akers actually dropped before Brown rolled into him. It was a classic flop that would have made Vlade Divac or Cristiano Ronaldo proud.
    There are other articles as well.

    The bottom line is, I am not so sure he was hit. In fact I don't actually think he was.

    But if he was hit, and the Raven player was blocked into him, it is not a foul.

    That is why I said it was dubious.
    Last edited by eddhead; February 5th, 2013 at 04:32 PM.

  5. #35
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    NFL faces class action lawsuit from thousands of former players
    Published 01 February, 2013 - WNYC / PRI

    Thousands of former professional football players and their wives have filed a class action lawsuit against the National Football League. Now, the NFL is faced with ameliorating the problem, as well as, perhaps, a legal battle that the organization could lose. More than 4,000 former professional football players and their wives have filed a class action lawsuit against the National Football League, accusing the league of deliberately concealing information about life-altering brain injuries caused by playing football.

    Attorney Gene Locks will be representing the plaintiffs. Paul Barrett, assistant managing editor at Bloomberg Businessweek, said he's one of the most-feared plaintiff's attorneys in the country. "(Locks) was one of the pioneers in the massive asbestos litigation that began in the 1970s. (He) made a small fortune representing pipe-fitters and others who were exposed to asbestos insulation and then went on to bring other mass lawsuits," he said.

    Locks deals with damages on the order of billions of dollars in these massive lawsuits, Barrett said. But Locks, his colleagues and his clients face challenges ahead. They'll be trying to argue against the idea that these players knew what risks they faced when they became professional football players. "Lawyers call (this argument) assumption of risk, which is the defense argument that you knew what you were getting into," he said.

    Barrett says the players knew it was dangerous, but the NFL knew playing could cause them permanent brain damage and covered the information up, or so the plaintiffs contend. "It is impossible for the (NFL) to argue that they were unaware of the issue. As early as 1994, they set up a committee specifically to study and issue reports on the issue," he said. The committee, though, functioned mostly to deny reports of brain injury, rather than aggressively investigating the cases brought forth, Barrett said.

    "The question is, will the league at this point, proactively figure out a way to settle this litigation, put more money into research and treatment and move forward, or will this turn into a tremendous legal food fight?" he said. The NFL, Barrett says, is moving forward and seems to be trying to solve the problem. The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that the union representing NFL players has selected Harvard University to lead a $100 million study to research, treat and prevent the broad-ranging health problems of these athletes.

    There's a limited pool of plaintiffs in this case made up of thousands of former players, Barrett said. Players who have recently started playing professionally can't be added to the lawsuit because they can't argue they didn't understand the dangers of the sport. "I think what we're going to see is that after a few rounds of legal skirmishing, the lawyers will get together around a conference table in private and will come up with a way to set aside some billions of dollars to be paid out over many years to treat players and investigate the problem," he said.

    http://www.pri.org/stories/arts-ente...ers-12846.html

  6. #36

    Default

    Wow. Kevin Lincoln of Buzz Feed. Look at his other stuff. Hey Kevin, did Beyonce cause the power failure? She sure caused a problem for me.

    At any rate, he doesn't understand the rule. The NFL player-safety rules have been updated at least twice, and what happened is a penalty. Contact was made with Akers' plant foot after the kick. It is one of the "defenseless player" situation defined by the NFL - he has to be allowed to come down after the kick. It's called all the time, because there's no chance to block the kick from that deep angle.

    The funny thing is that the video indicates that Akers' wasn't aware of the player coming in on him. He was looking down field.

    This is like "Wilfork picked up Moore and threw him into Sanchez" all over again. Maybe you can get Chris Collinsworth to back you up.

  7. #37

    Default

    The quote did not come from buzzfeed, it came from USA today.

    If there is no contact there is no foul

    If the player is blocked into the kicker there is no foul

    If (as the USA Today article claims was the case in this instance), it was caused by the kickers own actions, there is no foul

    this is from nfl.com

    A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is:

    (a) Incidental to and after he had touched ball in flight.

    (b) Caused by kicker’s own motions.

    (c) Occurs during a quick kick, or a kick made after a run behind the line, or after kicker recovers a loose ball on the ground. Ball is loose when kicker muffs snap or snap hits ground.

    (d) Defender is blocked into kicker.
    http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage


    Like I said, it is questionable, but I feel that if there was contact at all, it was caused by Akers' actions, which by the rules means it should not have been called. In addition, it also seemed to me as if he was blocked into the kicker. Again, no foul.

  8. #38

    Default

    Did anyone in the game telecast agree with you? Did they go their expert for a ruling?

    You seem to think this was a pivotal call
    Not only was the kickoff return was hugely important, the Ravens running into Akers (a dubious call in my opinion) as he missed a 38yd FG, allowed SF one more shot at it which he ultimately made. Those were two of the more important plays in the game and each could have or did, impact the outcome.
    Funny how a scoring play hardly got any game debate.

    23 clearly wasn't blocked into the kicker; he dove at him.

    What motions by Akers' caused the contact - putting his other leg down? He has to be given the opportunity to come down after the kick. He can't be undercut. That's how it's called, and if you want a good reason, see post #35.

  9. #39

    Default

    Do the people on the telecast always get the call right?

    It looked like the momentum of being hit drove the Raven player back. But even if it did not, I though Akers flopped. He fell into the Ravens player, not the other way around.

  10. #40

    Default

    Right or wrong, at least a big discussion about putting points back on the board.

    How was Brown blocked into the kicker; did someone pick him up and toss him? You can look at this over and over until your eyes glaze over. This is a penalty in any NFL game. If not, it's a missed call.



  11. #41

    Default

    Thanks for the video. Ican't tell if 23 was blocked or not he may not have been, but the point is moot.

    Looking at that again, there is no doubt in my mind that Aker flopped. He is clearly going to the ground prior to any contact being made. In fact, I am not entirely sure that there was contact, but if it so it was the result of Akers flopping and landing on top of a prone no. 23. The Raven player did not initiate the contact.

    So as Akers motion caused the contact (if in fact there was any), I do not believe that should have been called.
    Last edited by eddhead; February 6th, 2013 at 01:34 AM.

  12. #42

    Default

    The dream comes true for Norwegian Havard Rugland. With the way Akers has been declining this past couple of years, he could really feature next season. I'm a little disappointed the Vikings didn't take a look at him!

  13. #43

    Default

    Efforts by the city of Miami to host Super Bowl L are doomed. The Dolphins aren't going to renovate Sun Life Stadium; the Florida House of Representatives blocked their attempt to get public financing.

    Rightly so, especially after the city was screwed by the baseball Marlins robber-baron owner, Jeffrey Loroia, who put stars under contract before the stadium - built and owned by Miami-Dade County - opened. Then he had a fire sale.

    The stadium was 18th in attendance last year at 27,000 per game. This year they're dead last, under 20,000, and the upper bowl is being closed.

    BTW, Super Bowl L just doesn't look right. It's taken 50 years, but the NFL decision to use Roman numerals has bitten them in the ass.

    Is it Super Bowl 50 or Super Bowl El?

  14. #44

    Default

    ^ Agreed. L for loser. Hard to market it right.

  15. #45
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    lol, the big L Bowl

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software