Un-freakin'-believable game!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-12-2016, 02:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Three full steps. The fourth foot was coming down on the pivot. The hit happened simultaneous to the square up. I don't have a problem with the advancement. The problem is the crown of the helmet to the facemask. It shows the hypocrisy of the NFL and how they want to protect "defenseless" players. 

Advancement is a fact. Whether he was in a defensive position is not.

Actually, there's another vine/vid of this from behind Gio that shows his fourth foot was down prior to the hit.  I posted a youtube clip of it in another thread but I can't access youtube at work.

[*rfaulk34*]

(01-12-2016, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, there's another vine/vid of this from behind Gio that shows his fourth foot was down prior to the hit.  I posted a youtube clip of it in another thread but I can't access youtube at work.

I wouldn't question whether or not his 4th foot ( ) was down. Just that it wasn't an advancing step. It was being planted as he pivoted.

Steps, period, i'm not debating. Two things i would. 1. Defenseless vs Defensive, 2. Crown of the helmet to the facemask.

[*michaelsean*]

Not allowed to lead with the crown of his helmet there. Any argument about steps is moot unless you are asking why Williams got flagged and Shazier didn't as far as defenseless receivers go..

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2016, 02:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The penalty on Wheaton was legit despite his three steps, and there should have been no penalty on Shazier because we didn't know about that rule.

That about sum it up?

Wel, that's actually the reverse of what I have been saying, but you know.

[Beaker]

(01-12-2016, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll make this easy for you since you're having such a difficult time.  After the ball is in his hands how many separate times do Gio's feet leave the ground and then subsequently touch the ground before he is hit? 

I'll make this easy for you. Two steps with a pivot in there.  During the game, they had the head of officiating from NY count it out as the video played. He counted out one, two, turn, and impact. The GIF speaks for itself. You can argue all you want, you'll still be wrong.
 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-12-2016, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wel, that's actually the reverse of what I have been saying, but you know.

Yeah but mine is right.  Wheaton was a runner.  Shazier led with the crown of his helmet which is illegal there no matter what the ball carrier's status is.  

[Beaker]

(01-12-2016, 04:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but mine is right.  Wheaton was a runner.  Shazier led with the crown of his helmet which is illegal there no matter what the ball carrier's status is.  

I wasnt even debating the leading with the helmet part. I originally pointed out that the Bengals have had almost the identical situation called two opposite ways by the refs this season...both times to the Bengals detriment. If Gio was a runner, then Eifert was a runner too and should have been awarded the TD for breaking the plane. If Eifert was still considered a WR who was required to finish the catch, the Gio should have been considered a defenseless receiver. I just sucks that the inconsistency is so obvious and so detrimental.

And actually, steeler fans should be agreeing with me on this point, because eventually these kind of inconsistencies will cost their team also.

[GMDino]

(01-12-2016, 04:08 PM)Beaker Wrote: I'll make this easy for you. Two steps with a pivot in there.  During the game, they had the head of officiating from NY count it out as the video played. He counted out one, two, turn, and impact. The GIF speaks for itself. You can argue all you want, you'll still be wrong.
 

Dean Blandino was on the CBS broadcast?

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2016, 04:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but mine is right.  Wheaton was a runner.  Shazier led with the crown of his helmet which is illegal there no matter what the ball carrier's status is.  

That's exactly what I have been saying, even in the post you quoted.

(01-12-2016, 04:28 PM)Beaker Wrote: I wasnt even debating the leading with the helmet part. I originally pointed out that the Bengals have had almost the identical situation called two opposite ways by the refs this season...both times to the Bengals detriment. If Gio was a runner, then Eifert was a runner too and should have been awarded the TD for breaking the plane. If Eifert was still considered a WR who was required to finish the catch, the Gio should have been considered a defenseless receiver. I just sucks that the inconsistency is so obvious and so detrimental.

And actually, steeler fans should be agreeing with me on this point, because eventually these kind of inconsistencies will cost their team also.

I do agree with you. We know much more now about the injuries these players take and the toll is exerts on their bodies, so there is absolutely a need for rules to help increase player safety. But, these rules have to be followed evenly. There is far too much subjectivity for these rules to be fair, or really of any benefit to player safety.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-12-2016, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's exactly what I have been saying, even in the post you quoted.


I do agree with you. We know much more now about the injuries these players take and the toll is exerts on their bodies, so there is absolutely a need for rules to help increase player safety. But, these rules have to be followed evenly. There is far too much subjectivity for these rules to be fair, or really of any benefit to player safety.

Oh I thought you said you were saying the opposite of me.  Sorry.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-12-2016, 04:08 PM)Beaker Wrote: I'll make this easy for you. Two steps with a pivot in there.  During the game, they had the head of officiating from NY count it out as the video played. He counted out one, two, turn, and impact. The GIF speaks for itself. You can argue all you want, you'll still be wrong.
 

I'll again ask the question you dodged.  How many times did Gio's feet leave the ground and then subsequently touch the ground between his catching the ball and his being hit by Shazier?  Moving forward is not a requirement for a "step" to have taken place.  A "step" involves you picking up for foot and then placing it back on the ground.  Now that I've helped you by explaining what a step is perhaps you can answer the question of how many steps were taken before the hit?  I await your non answer with baited breath.

[Vlad]

(01-12-2016, 04:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but mine is right.  Wheaton was a runner.  Shazier led with the crown of his helmet which is illegal there no matter what the ball carrier's status is.  

Wrong.
That's only if the receiver has no time to protect himself.

1. Receiver Who Has Completed a Catch. If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head, neck, or face-even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver's neck.

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2016, 07:09 PM)Vlad Wrote: Wrong.
That's only if the receiver has no time to protect himself.

1. Receiver Who Has Completed a Catch. If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head, neck, or face-even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver's neck.

The rule below that one in the rules states that a tackler cannot lead with the crown outside of the tackle box. I am too lazy to look it up right now, though.

[Rotobeast]

(01-12-2016, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The rule below that one in the rules states that a tackler cannot lead with the crown outside of the tackle box. I am too lazy to look it up right now, though.

Lazy is where it's at, Bro.
Nothing like being comfy.

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2016, 08:09 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Lazy is where it's at, Bro.
Nothing like being comfy.

I just got done cooking dinner after coming home from work. People can look up their own shit.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-12-2016, 08:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just got done cooking dinner after coming home from work. People can look up their own shit.

I look DOWN at my shit.

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2016, 08:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I look DOWN at my shit.

The word 'at' makes a world of difference, doesn't it?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-12-2016, 07:09 PM)Vlad Wrote: Wrong.
That's only if the receiver has no time to protect himself.

1. Receiver Who Has Completed a Catch. If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head, neck, or face-even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver's neck.

There's more than one rule in the rule book.

[Aquapod770]

(01-13-2016, 11:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: There's more than one rule in the rule book.

And it's been posted multiple times in different smack talk threads.

[Belsnickel]

So, I get it was emotional, but Hill's reaction seems a little much.
https://twitter.com/insidetheNFL/status/687066295292919808

But I don't know, I probably would've been just as animated had I been in his shoes.