The joey porter rule?

[Beaker]

(06-10-2016, 03:44 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Unfortunately for bungal fans, they've yet to pass a rule that can keep CIN from choking in a playoff game.

It took until post 55 for someone to finally come up with an actual smack reply. Thank you.

The rest of you sukk....bad.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-10-2016, 03:17 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: http://www.cincyjungle.com/2016/6/9/11895576/nfl-rule-changes-affected-bengals-vs-steelers

Jesus Crisp is what a load of shit and delusional spin. But what else would you expect from a Bengals Homer website? 

For the 1,000,000th time.....

If the refs missed the call and Joey Porter should have been flagged it would have made ZERO difference in the outcome of the game and here is why. Wallace Gilberry also should have been flagged (as evidenced by the NFL handing him a fine, along with Porter) and those penalties would have offset. Pac Man's penalty was separate and still would have counted and been enforced, moving the ball forward 15 yards for the chip shot FG.

So please spin away Bungle publication, the rest of us will live in reality. 

The reality that, many times, the Steelers play in the grey area of rules and the NFL has to adjust/enforce them better, to get them in line?

Everyone already knows that "reality". 

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-10-2016, 05:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Somehow this thread ended up 3 pages long after being clearly ended on post number 3. Will not be returning to read any crap thrown on the pile after SCC put the issue to rest post 3.

SteelCityCentral?

[Bengalzona]

(06-10-2016, 05:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Somehow this thread ended up 3 pages long after being clearly ended on post number 3. Will not be returning to read any crap thrown on the pile after SCC put the issue to rest post 3.

Ah! Don't be that way, sweetheart. Come back and play Smack with us!

[Bengalzona]

(06-10-2016, 02:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I miss the days when you could hide text by making it the same color as the background.  Really made for some interesting conversations.

I lied...You can totally still do it.  Oh how fun this will be.

Yeah, I miss it too.


Your wife says my fist is bigger than yours.

[Rotobeast]

(06-10-2016, 02:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I live and was raised in Kentucky and i'm the smartest person you will ever "know".

Like..... in the Biblical sense ?

[tigerseye]

What Porter did/was doing on the field was already against the rules.

So to make it seem like now it is against the rules isn't truthful.

The refs flat out didn't call it.

The Steelers could not have won that game without the help of the refs. A total World Wrastlin' Federation outcome. (Congratulations Peyton Manning).

The Steelers coaches were used as part of the game plan and Goodell does nothing about it. What a joke.

I think everybody in the country sees what Goodell is all about. Hopefully the league doesn't become a joke.

The NFL needs to maintain their credability and integrity or they will end up killing the golden goose.

The problem is they may be to arrogant to think that this could actually happen.

Who Dey!!!!!!!!

Lets kick the crap out of the hair pullers this year.

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-11-2016, 10:25 AM)tigerseye Wrote: What Porter did/was doing on the field was already against the rules.

So to make it seem like now it is against the rules isn't truthful.

The refs flat out didn't call it.

You're misinformed.

The rule stated that they are allowed out there if given permission by the refs.

The new rule takes the judgement out of it by eliminating the "permission by the refs" part of it and making it a pretty much cut and dry rule.

The problem that arises though is that when Bengal fans (again) choose to retroactively apply current rules to things that happen in the past, they become the victims of unintended consequences, like the fact that their coaches broke the rules when they ran onto the field after the Gio hit. 

[*jason*]

(06-11-2016, 10:51 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: You're misinformed.

The rule stated that they are allowed out there if given permission by the refs.

The new rule takes the judgement out of it by eliminating the "permission by the refs" part of it and making it a pretty much cut and dry rule.

The problem that arises though is that when Bengal fans (again) choose to retroactively apply current rules to things that happen in the past, they become the victims of unintended consequences, like the fact that their coaches broke the rules when they ran onto the field after the Gio hit. 

Oh I know. I couldn't believe that the Bengals' coaches ran out into the Steelers defensive huddle after that play. I was very disappointed in their behavior.

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-11-2016, 01:03 PM)jason Wrote: Oh I know. I couldn't believe that the Bengals' coaches ran out into the Steelers defensive huddle after that play. I was very disappointed in their behavior.

Unfortunately the new rule says nothing about where on the field, it just says 'on the field.'

[Beaker]

How many more new rules are going to be named after people in the steeler organization?

[JS-Steelerfan]

(06-11-2016, 06:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: How many more new rules are going to be named after people in the steeler organization?

Depends on how many more you're planning on naming.  

[GMDino]

Just tonight a friend on Facebook posted that Porter was at Ward's restaurant recording a podcast tonight and he said:

"They now have the Joey Porter rule because Pac-Man is stupid".


And that pretty much sums it up.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-11-2016, 10:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just tonight a friend on Facebook posted that Porter was at Ward's restaurant recording a podcast tonight and he said:

"They now have the Joey Porter rule because Pac-Man is stupid".


And that pretty much sums it up.

True. And what does that make Porter?

[GMDino]

(06-11-2016, 11:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: True. And what does that make Porter?

Smarter than Pacman?

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-11-2016, 11:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Smarter than Pacman?

And what does this answer make you?

[GMDino]

(06-11-2016, 11:27 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: And what does this answer make you?

Smarter than you.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-11-2016, 11:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Smarter than Pacman?

No

(06-11-2016, 11:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Smarter than you.

And no.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-12-2016, 07:29 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: No


And no.

Compelling arguments.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-12-2016, 08:29 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Compelling arguments.

For some, "no" is as compelling as it needs to be.