(10-15-2018, 01:03 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: After studying this a little more closely and listening to Al Riveron's explanation, my official opinion is that it could have gone either way.  The main question is who initiated the contact.  If the defender initiates it in an attempt to jam the receiver, the receiver has the right to fight through the attempted jam beyond that one-yard zone.  Charlie Batch even offered that explanation on the Steelers post-game radio show several hours before Riveron tweeted about it.  

After watching the play several times, I'd say that the problem is that reasonable people could disagree on who initiated the contact.  

The thing is, had it been called, it's anybody's guess as to what would have happened next.  The Steelers would have had fifteen seconds and all of their timeouts to regain that yardage and kick a field goal.  No one can say with any degree of certainty whether they would have been able to do that.  Therefore, it's a bit of a stretch to say that not getting the penalty absolutely cost them the game.  No one can really say that for sure.  

But, anticipating that you lack the emotional maturity to accept any of this, I'll just say this to you: tough noogies.  

I'd say that you can't be this stupid, but you've proven me wrong time and time again.

The fact that you're even saying that it could have gone either way, which it couldn't, means that you know you've been full of shit this entire time with any empty argument.  It makes me wonder if you even watched the play beyond the time you saw it live.  

If the defender initiated the contact and the receiver was just trying to get by, then he would have continued to try to do beyond the initial contact.  Watch it again, he runs out, makes contact, and shoves McRae, and then doesn't even try to go any further, which why would he stop if he was just trying to run his route?  He doesn't have eyes in the back of his head and no way he could have known that the ball had been thrown.  Any time I see a receiver trying to fight through a jam, they may use their hands to throw them aside or swat their hands away, but I can't recall any shoves.

The Steelers only had two timeouts and would have had to use one to prevent a clock run-off, so they're left with one timeout and need to gain ten yards on one play.  Further proof that you didn't even watch it and you're just making up bullshit and hoping that I'm too stupid to call you out on it, right?

But, anticipating your lack of maturity, as well as lack of football intelligence and common sense, to accept any of this, I know that you'll have no answer to any of this.

Oh I see all the Steelers fans that went into hiding for a while are back in full force. No surprise there.

As for yesterday’s events? It’s just one game and there are 10 more to go. A lot of football left.

(10-15-2018, 03:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'd say that you can't be this stupid, but you've proven me wrong time and time again.

The fact that you're even saying that it could have gone either way, which it couldn't, means that you know you've been full of shit this entire time with any empty argument.  It makes me wonder if you even watched the play beyond the time you saw it live.  

If the defender initiated the contact and the receiver was just trying to get by, then he would have continued to try to do beyond the initial contact.  Watch it again, he runs out, makes contact, and shoves McRae, and then doesn't even try to go any further, which why would he stop if he was just trying to run his route?  He doesn't have eyes in the back of his head and no way he could have known that the ball had been thrown.  Any time I see a receiver trying to fight through a jam, they may use their hands to throw them aside or swat their hands away, but I can't recall any shoves.

The Steelers only had two timeouts and would have had to use one to prevent a clock run-off, so they're left with one timeout and need to gain ten yards on one play.  Further proof that you didn't even watch it and you're just making up bullshit and hoping that I'm too stupid to call you out on it, right?

But, anticipating your lack of maturity, as well as lack of football intelligence and common sense, to accept any of this, I know that you'll have no answer to any of this.

First of all, you implied that I had expressed an opinion before this.  I hadn't.  You apparently imagined that I had. You're good at that. 

You say you can't recall any shoves from Hunter.  Isn't that what you say he's guilty of?    

At any rate, you should watch it again.  You said that he just stops, which is true.  But by the time he does, Brown has already caught the ball and has started streaking to the end zone.  By that time, AB was in his field of vision.  But it was such a quick release that Brown was likely the only planned option, so he wouldn't have had to see it know the ball had already been thrown.  

I stand corrected on the timeouts.  They had used one and were down to two. But why in the world would they have had to use an additional timeout to prevent clock runoff if the penalty had been called?  The clock stops automatically after penalties are called.  

So ... They had fifteen seconds and two timeouts to gain 10 yards back.  Certainly, the Bengals could have stopped them under those circumstances.  But, to claim that they absolutely would have is downright ... Brad-like.  

So the Bengals still lead the division. They hold all the cards if they just win. Some Bengal fans sound like the year is over. Your team is playing better. Offense is improving. Defense is up although you had a ton of injuries late in the defensive backfield. You guys STILL lead the division and are in the driver's seat. THAT is improvement.

(10-15-2018, 04:35 PM)Rollers Wrote: So the Bengals still lead the division. They hold all the cards if they just win. Some Bengal fans sound like the year is over. Your team is playing better. Offense is improving. Defense is up although you had a ton of injuries late in the defensive backfield. You guys STILL lead the division and are in the driver's seat. THAT is improvement.

I honestly think the fact that bengals go to KC next Sunday is the biggest reason our fan base is in a bit of panic mode. It felt like we needed to at least split with Pittsburgh and KC and now the game that seemed far less winnable is the game needed to get the split.

That being said, as I said earlier, there is still a lot of football left to be played. Only time will tell.

(10-15-2018, 04:40 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: I honestly think the fact that bengals go to KC next Sunday is the biggest reason our fan base is in a bit of panic mode. It felt like we needed to at least split with Pittsburgh and KC and now the game that seemed far less winnable is the game needed to get the split.

That being said, as I said earlier, there is still a lot of football left to be played. Only time will tell.

LOTS of football.  And with the defensive coordinator we have you can bet we'll be back to giving up 45 points a game soon

(10-15-2018, 04:20 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: First of all, you implied that I had expressed an opinion before this.  I hadn't.  You apparently imagined that I had.  You're good at that. 

You say you can't recall any shoves from Hunter.  Isn't that what you say he's guilty of?    

At any rate, you should watch it again.  You said that he just stops, which is true.  But by the time he does, Brown has already caught the ball and has started streaking to the end zone.  By that time, AB was in his field of vision.  But it was such a quick release that Brown was likely the only planned option, so he wouldn't have had to see it know the ball had already been thrown.  

I stand corrected on the timeouts.  They had used one and were down to two. But why in the world would they have had to use an additional timeout to prevent clock runoff if the penalty had been called?  The clock stops automatically after penalties are called.  

So ... They had fifteen seconds and two timeouts to gain 10 yards back.  Certainly, the Bengals could have stopped them under those circumstances.  But, to claim that they absolutely would have is downright ... Brad-like.  

I’m heading to the gym but I’m just going to address this part:

On an offensive penalty in the last two minutes of either half, there is a ten second run off OR the offense has to use a timeout, which would have left you with one, meaning that we just had to prevent you from gaining the ten yards back one time because the clock would have expired on the second try.

I’m really starting to think using the crayons might not even be a simple enough explanation for the Steelers fans on this board because they don’t understand the rules.

(10-15-2018, 04:13 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: Oh I see all the Steelers fans that went into hiding for a while are back in full force. No surprise there.

As for yesterday’s events? It’s just one game and there are 10 more to go. A lot of football left.

You will be going back in hiding when your heart gets broken again in about eight weeks or so.

(10-15-2018, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I’m heading to the gym but I’m just going to address this part:

On an offensive penalty in the last two minutes of either half, there is a ten second run off OR the offense has to use a timeout, which would have left you with one, meaning that we just had to prevent you from gaining the ten yards back one time because the clock would have expired on the second try.

I’m really starting to think using the crayons might not even be a simple enough explanation for the Steelers fans on this board because they don’t understand the rules.

Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to straighten this controversy out Brad.

(10-15-2018, 01:03 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: After studying this a little more closely and listening to Al Riveron's explanation, my official opinion is that it could have gone either way.  The main question is who initiated the contact.  If the defender initiates it in an attempt to jam the receiver, the receiver has the right to fight through the attempted jam beyond that one-yard zone.  Charlie Batch even offered that explanation on the Steelers post-game radio show several hours before Riveron tweeted about it.  

After watching the play several times, I'd say that the problem is that reasonable people could disagree on who initiated the contact.  

The thing is, had it been called, it's anybody's guess as to what would have happened next.  The Steelers would have had fifteen seconds and all of their timeouts to regain that yardage and kick a field goal.  No one can say with any degree of certainty whether they would have been able to do that.  Therefore, it's a bit of a stretch to say that not getting the penalty absolutely cost them the game.  No one can really say that for sure.  

But, anticipating that you lack the emotional maturity to accept any of this, I'll just say this to you: tough noogies.  

Your stupid kicker would have missed, like he's been doing all year. 

(10-15-2018, 03:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If the defender initiated the contact and the receiver was just trying to get by, then he would have continued to try to do beyond the initial contact.  Watch it again, he runs out, makes contact, and shoves McRae, and then doesn't even try to go any further, which why would he stop if he was just trying to run his route?  He doesn't have eyes in the back of his head and no way he could have known that the ball had been thrown.  Any time I see a receiver trying to fight through a jam, they may use their hands to throw them aside or swat their hands away, but I can't recall any shoves.

You steelers homers need to read this a couple times and try to formulate a coherent, accurate response that isn't full of shit!!

(10-15-2018, 05:59 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You steelers homers need to read this a couple times and try to formulate a coherent, accurate response that isn't full of shit!!

Read this Nerd:  

Archdeacon: Big Ben, Steelers ‘take care of business’ — again — in Cincinnati

(10-15-2018, 05:45 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: You will be going back in hiding when your heart gets broken again in about eight weeks or so.

I’m stubborn, so now I’ll definitely be here no matter what.

(10-15-2018, 06:24 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: I’m stubborn, so now I’ll definitely be here no matter what.

I commend your loyalty and perseverance.

(10-15-2018, 05:45 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: You will be going back in hiding when your heart gets broken again in about eight weeks or so.

He’s not in hiding now so what’s the “back in hiding”?

(10-15-2018, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I’m heading to the gym but I’m just going to address this part:

On an offensive penalty in the last two minutes of either half, there is a ten second run off OR the offense has to use a timeout, which would have left you with one, meaning that we just had to prevent you from gaining the ten yards back one time because the clock would have expired on the second try.

I’m really starting to think using the crayons might not even be a simple enough explanation for the Steelers fans on this board because they don’t understand the rules.

There are two things you don't fully seem to understand here. 

The first thing you don't understand is the runoff rule. It does not apply here.  It does not apply to all offensive penalties, but rather for those which have the intention of illegally stopping the clock.  Look it up: Rule 4, Article 7, Section 1. The main thing here is that in order to induce the runoff, the goal of the infraction had to be to stop the clock, which is clearly NOT the goal of offensive pass interference.  On any other type of penalty, the clock would be started again, if it was running prior to the beginning of the down.  In this case it was not, because the Steelers had called a timeout in the previous play.  Thanks for reminding me that they had used one. ;-)

Since you will probably not believe me on this, allow me to present exhibit A: The runoff rule applies within the 2 minute warning of each half, but in the KC/NE game, KC committed an illegal use of hands penalty (on offense) with 1:28 to go in the first half.  They did not incur a runoff, and there was no controversy. 

The second thing you don't understand is the purpose of crayons and who they are intended to help.  They're supposed to be an aid to those who write or draw with them and not those who read what is produced by them.  This is why children's books publishers do not generally print in crayon, but pre-schoolers do.  That being said, if you require the use of crayons to make your points, don't let me stop you. 

I’ll say I’d rather lose on a close non-call than a bad call. I only recall two of those. The Justin Smith roughing and funny enough in another game against Tampa would be the Barney Bussey interference call. He was in front of the receiver and as he was intercepting the ball in the end zone, the receiver stepped on the back of his foot and fell.

I’m happy when I hear it wasn’t a bad no call. I’d much rather lose straight up than think the refs caused a loss. That can eat you up.

(10-15-2018, 07:57 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: There are two things you don't fully seem to understand here. 

The first thing you don't understand is the runoff rule. It does not apply here.  It does not apply to all offensive penalties, but rather for those which have the intention of illegally stopping the clock.  Look it up: Rule 4, Article 7, Section 1. The main thing here is that in order to induce the runoff, the goal of the infraction is to stop the clock, which is clearly NOT the goal of offensive pass interference.  On any other type of penalty, the clock would be started again, if it was running prior to the beginning of the down.  In this case it was not, because the Steelers had called a timeout in the previous play.  Thanks for reminding me that they had used one. ;-)

Since you will probably not believe me on this, allow me to present exhibit A: The runoff rule applies within the 2 minute warning of each half, but in the KC/NE game, KC committed an illegal use of hands penalty (on offense) with 1:28 to go in the first half.  They did not incur a runoff, and there was no controversy. 

The second thing you don't understand is the purpose of crayons and who they are intended to help. They're supposed to be an aid to those who wrote or draw with them and not those who read what is produced by them.  This is why children's books publishers do not generally print in crayon, but pre-schoolers do.  That being said, if you require the use of crayons to make your points, don't let me stop you. 

Ok but then you still have to get ten yards and we’re not crowding the line like we were on the touchdown just so we could stop the run.

It was a dirty and illegal play...... you cheated to win.

(10-15-2018, 08:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok but then you still have to get ten yards and we’re not crowding the line like we were on the touchdown just so we could stop the run.

It was a dirty and illegal play...... you cheated to win.

Conner's non touchdown that resulted in 4 points lost, should have been a touchdown because the football broke the plane before his head touched the ground. The refs messed it up and Tomlin never challenged which resulted in the loss of 4 points because they had to settle for a field goal. So that last drive still wouldn't have mattered if the refs had gotten that call right to begin with.

(10-15-2018, 08:47 PM)Captain Obvious Wrote: Conner's non touchdown that resulted in 4 points lost, should have been a touchdown because the football broke the plane before his head touched the ground. The refs messed it up and Tomlin never challenged which resulted in the loss of 4 points because they had to settle for a field goal. So that last drive still wouldn't have mattered if the refs had gotten that call right to begin with.

You see something like that actually makes me happy. Add those four and Pitt, not the refs, won. Now I do hate continuously losing to them, it’s almost bizarre, but it beats thinking you got robbed.