|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 19, 2017 16:47:13 GMT
VP of Officiating's ruling has led to 3 Patriots' wins
Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has reported that Al Riveron, the NFL's Senior VP of Officiating, has made calls that have resulted in 3 Patriot wins this season
Bryan DeArdo - 16 hours ago
Jesse James' overturned touchdown was influenced by Al Riveron, the NFL's Senior VP of Officiating who is in his first year on the job.
On Monday night, Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a story detailing how Riveron's decisions have resulted in three Patriot victories this season that includes the Steelers' overturned touchdown pass role in Pittsburgh's loss to New England on Sunday night.
Per Bouchette, here are the other two plays that Riveron ruled in New England's favor:
- Brandon Cooks' game-winning touchdown against the Texans. Despite Cooks losing control of the ball as it hit the ground, Riveron did not overturn the officials' call on the field.
- The Jets' Austin Seferian-Jenkins fumbled the ball (that went through the back of the end zone) after not being touch and after he crossed the goal line upon catching a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots. After being called a touchdown on the field, Riveron overturned the call upon further review.
Riveron explained the decision to overturn James' touchdown in the following video released on Sunday night.
Riveron has played a substantial role in New England's currant standing in the AFC playoff picture.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Dec 19, 2017 18:02:58 GMT
All I know for sure is that, according to the rules, that was not a catch in the game Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 19, 2017 18:34:43 GMT
All I know for sure is that, according to the rules, that was not a catch in the game Sunday. According to your interpretation. Which is kind of where the problem begins. The rules demand personal interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Dec 19, 2017 18:39:03 GMT
All I know for sure is that, according to the rules, that was not a catch in the game Sunday. According to your interpretation. Which is kind of where the problem begins. The rules demand personal interpretation. No, not according to my interpretation or anyone's. It is according to the rules, which are pretty clear, albeit dumb. It was not a catch.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 19, 2017 19:26:41 GMT
According to your interpretation. Which is kind of where the problem begins. The rules demand personal interpretation. No, not according to my interpretation or anyone's. It is according to the rules, which are pretty clear, albeit dumb. It was not a catch. Unfortunately, Bill Belichick does not agree with you: "I don’t know. It’s a tough rule. It’s a bang-bang play. It could go either way"
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 19, 2017 19:29:51 GMT
Neither does Jerry Jones:
"allow that to be a catch because I believe that they are doing a football move. They are athletic enough to do it all in one motion, but I believe he had control when he made a football move. The rule says he has to have a football move associated with that to be a catch"
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 19, 2017 19:58:47 GMT
Neither does Jerry Jones: "allow that to be a catch because I believe that they are doing a football move. They are athletic enough to do it all in one motion, but I believe he had control when he made a football move. The rule says he has to have a football move associated with that to be a catch" That's my issue as well...because there's text that says 'establish yourself as a runner' and I don't really know what that means outside of making a football move. And the vague term of football move is another concept that is up for interpretation. What bugs me is that i stead of watching the play for what it is you have a page long, several sections detailing what exactly it means to catch the ball...but in the process they let that not be a catch when the receiver gains control, pulls the ball in to his chest, goes to his knees, then stretches out toward the goal line all with control...and then his one hand slips off as the ball hits the ground. So the whole thing was incomplete. Make it simple, NFL. Nothing needs to be this complicated.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 19, 2017 20:00:29 GMT
Neither does Jerry Jones: "allow that to be a catch because I believe that they are doing a football move. They are athletic enough to do it all in one motion, but I believe he had control when he made a football move. The rule says he has to have a football move associated with that to be a catch" That's my issue as well...because there's text that says 'establish yourself as a runner' and I don't really know what that means outside of making a football move. And the vague term of football move is another concept that is up for interpretation. What bugs me is that i stead of watching the play for what it is you have a page long, several sections detailing what exactly it means to catch the ball...but in the process they let that not be a catch when the receiver gains control, pulls the ball in to his chest, goes to his knees, then stretches out toward the goal line all with control...and then his one hand slips off as the ball hits the ground. So the whole thing was incomplete. Make it simple, NFL. Nothing needs to be this complicated. Sweet avatar, Marv!
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 19, 2017 20:02:06 GMT
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 19, 2017 20:40:46 GMT
VP of Officiating's ruling has led to 3 Patriots' wins Just three? I would think that the proper application of the rules would be instrumental in every single Patriots victory. In fact, I'm willing to bet that NFL officials have had a major role in determining the winner of every single game played by every single team! Weird how that works ...
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 19, 2017 20:56:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 19, 2017 21:08:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 19, 2017 21:16:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 19, 2017 21:17:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 19, 2017 21:25:46 GMT
www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/04/tom-brady-deflategate-ideal-gas-lawWe could do this all day. You can pretend the calls were wrong even though they weren't; you can keep hating the Patriots and posting bullshit; I really don't care. If you actually bothered reading the NY Times article I posted you'd see how it details the conspiracy against the Patriots in the league office, instead of just posting anti-Patriots links. But I suppose it's easier to pretend the Patriots are somehow getting help from the league office if you don't know the facts. Just know that you and DC Fan are on one side and reality is on the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 21:33:04 GMT
I pretty much just have Patriots envy and am jealous that the Pats have 5 Super Bowls and the Eagles have none
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 19, 2017 23:07:55 GMT
Riveron has played a substantial role in New England's currant standing in the AFC playoff picture. Maybe Al Riveron deserves a ring, should the Patriots reign supreme in the Super Bowl yet again.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 20, 2017 5:18:00 GMT
ReyKahuka just got owned!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 20, 2017 5:24:31 GMT
www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/04/tom-brady-deflategate-ideal-gas-lawWe could do this all day. You can pretend the calls were wrong even though they weren't; you can keep hating the Patriots and posting bullshit; I really don't care. If you actually bothered reading the NY Times article I posted you'd see how it details the conspiracy against the Patriots in the league office, instead of just posting anti-Patriots links. But I suppose it's easier to pretend the Patriots are somehow getting help from the league office if you don't know the facts. Just know that you and DC Fan are on one side and reality is on the other. 1st, the calls were wrong. 2nd, the opinions of those 21 scientists are IRRELEVANT because NONE OF THOSE 21 SCIENTISTS WERE WILLING TO COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING AND SUBJECT THEIR ANALYSIS TO THE SCRUTINY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.
If you're charged with a crime and you say you have an witness who can give you an alibi for the crime but that witness isn't willing to come forward and testify in court, GUESS WHAT: YOU DON'T HAVE AN ALIBI BECAUSE YOU'RE WITNESS WASN'T WILLING TO TESTIFY AND SUBJECT HIS TESTIMONY TO THE SCRUTINY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. SAME WITH THOSE 21 SCIENTISTS. THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO COME FORWARD AND TESTFIFY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING AND SUBJECT THEIR ANALYSIS TO THE SCRUTINY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION SO THEY'RE OPINIONS ARE INVALID AND IRRELEVANT.
Bottom line: Ted Wells was right. Brady was guilty of cheating.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 20, 2017 16:05:04 GMT
NONE OF THOSE 21 SCIENTISTS WERE WILLING TO COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING AND SUBJECT THEIR ANALYSIS TO THE SCRUTINY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. Actually, they were. It was the NFL who didn't want to be subjected to the embarrassment of the unanimous testimony of 21 scientists. That would have entailed endless hours of repetitive damning testimony against the Wells Report. The NFL got what they wanted. A brief was filed instead. A brief that contained this graph, illustrating the idiocy of Deflategate. The football pressure from every outdoor game since 1960. The NFL permissible pressure range is in red. There is a reason the NFL refused to release their own pressure measurements. This is it.
|
|