Arkansas definately got screwed

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, you think that if a corner ever sticks his hand out to bat down a pass when he sees the receiver tracking the ball, even if the corner can't see the ball himself, the corner can make contact with the receiver without a pass interference call?

Sorry, guy, that's not gonna fly in either college or the pros. If the corner doesn't even know where the ball is, he can't make a bona fide attempt on the ball.

No. What I think is, the information you yourself presented supports the fact that there was no Pass Interference on that play.

Not the same thing at all is it?

 

[Rogah]

First, someone else quoted the NFL rule. I just showed them how even if you use the NFL rule it wouldn't be a pass interference.

Second, you were also confused about what play it was, now you're confused about who posted what? Why not just give up on the thread and the argument altogether?

Oh, right you already have.

I apologize for attributing someone else's quote to you. Yes, it's true I have only been casually following this thread. When I am right about something and know I am right, I generally don't engage in endless back-and-forths with people who are hell-bent on being wrong.

 

[theogt]

No. What I think is, the information you yourself presented supports the fact that there was no Pass Interference on that play.

Not the same thing at all is it?

Actually, yeah, it's exactly what you're saying.

I apologize for attributing someone else's quote to you. Yes, it's true I have only been casually following this thread. When I am right about something and know I am right, I generally don't engage in endless back-and-forths with people who are hell-bent on being wrong.

It's probably best not to engage in them when you're dead wrong either. I'll let you by with it this time, though.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually, yeah, it's exactly what you're saying.

It's probably best not to engage in them when you're dead wrong either. I'll let you by with it this time, though.

I understand that in your mind it is. It's OK. I let you buy with it this time.

 

[theogt]

I understand that in your mind it is. It's OK. I let you buy with it this time.

You think that it's a "bona fide" attempt at the ball even if he doesn't know where the ball is.

Thus, logically any corner can just stick his hand out to bat the pass without knowing where the ball is and make a "bona fide" attempt on the ball and not have PI called.

You can't refute this.

 

[DallasCowpoke]

WOW @ you two STILL arguing 2 weeks later!

Isn't there a nice Valerie Perrine marathon over on LMN.tv you girls would enjoy more?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

WOW @ you two STILL arguing 2 weeks later!

Isn't there a nice Valerie Perrine marathon over on LMN.tv you girls would enjoy more?

Tried to get tickets but some clown namded DallasCowpoke bought em all up.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You think that it's a "bona fide" attempt at the ball even if he doesn't know where the ball is.

Thus, logically any corner can just stick his hand out to bat the pass without knowing where the ball is and make a "bona fide" attempt on the ball and not have PI called.

You can't refute this.

I think that the DB didn't intentionally put his hads on the WR. I believe the WR created the contact by slowing up and then wrapping his arms around the DB to try and catch the ball. I believe the DB was in the process of locating the ball when he fell down. I didn't see any illegal contact on that play. I believe that the strict sense of the term bona fide was fulfilled by the DB. The rule says nothing about knowing where the ball is. It says you have to be trying to make a play on the ball. That DB was clearly trying to do that. If anything, I think it was offensive.

 

[theogt]

I think that the DB didn't intentionally put his hads on the WR.

Wait...what?

I believe the WR created the contact by slowing up and then wrapping his arms around the DB to try and catch the ball.

The receiver can slow down and cause contact. He has the right to the ball. The corner can't make contact with the receiver, even if the receiver is slowing down.

I believe the DB was in the process of locating the ball when he fell down.

Simply bein gin the process of locating the ball isn't enough to get you incidental contact. You have to actually be making a bona fide attempt on the ball. You can't make a bona fide attempt if you don't even know where the ball is.

I didn't see any illegal contact on that play.

That's because you don't know what illegal contact is.

I believe that the strict sense of the term bona fide was fulfilled by the DB. The rule says nothing about knowing where the ball is. It says you have to be trying to make a play on the ball. That DB was clearly trying to do that. If anything, I think it was offensive.

And, hence, you must logically think that any CB can get away with pass interference as long as he just sticks his arm out to knock a ball down. That's the logical conclusion to your analysis. There is no way around it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wait...what?

I guess I can spell it slower if you need me to.

The receiver can slow down and cause contact. He has the right to the ball. The corner can't make contact with the receiver, even if the receiver is slowing down.

The DB also has a right to the ball. The WR can't initiate contact, which IMO, is what happened. At worst, it's incidental, which is allowable.

Simply bein gin the process of locating the ball isn't enough to get you incidental contact. You have to actually be making a bona fide attempt on the ball. You can't make a bona fide attempt if you don't even know where the ball is.

What's the definition of bona fide? I've already told you. The DB satisfied that.

That's because you don't know what illegal contact is.

Apparently neither does the Official who was standing right next to both players. He didn't throw his flag. The Official on the back line did. The official with the best view saw nothing.

And, hence, you must logically think that any CB can get away with pass interference as long as he just sticks his arm out to knock a ball down. That's the logical conclusion to your analysis. There is no way around it.

This is your logical conclusion. The key, IMO, is who initiated the contact. It was the WR IMO. It was not the DB.

 

[theogt]

I guess I can spell it slower if you need me to.

Wouldn't matter if you could. The rule has no exception for unintentional contact.

The DB also has a right to the ball. The WR can't initiate contact, which IMO, is what happened. At worst, it's incidental, which is allowable.

The receiver forced the corner to put his hands on his chest?

You can't be serious.

What's the definition of bona fide? I've already told you. The DB satisfied that.

Your definition is non-sensical. It allows any defender to simply negate PI by putting his hand in the air.

That's absurd. But you can believe whatever you want to believe.

This is your logical conclusion.

No, it's the logic. There's no way around it. It just is.

The key, IMO, is who initiated the contact. It was the WR IMO. It was not the DB.

The DB initiated contact by putting his hands on the receiver's chest.

 

[DallasCowpoke]

Tried to get tickets but some clown namded DallasCowpoke bought em all up.

Just for that, I think Theo's right! Proceed Theo.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wouldn't matter if you could. The rule has no exception for unintentional contact.

The rules, however, do allow for incidental contact.

The receiver forced the corner to put his hands on his chest?

You can't be serious.

I did not say forced. I said initiated contact. Your reaching now.

Your definition is non-sensical. It allows any defender to simply negate PI by putting his hand in the air.

It is not my definition. It is the definition. If you have another, I'm open to reading it.

That's absurd. But you can believe whatever you want to believe.

Absurd or not, that's what the rule says.

No, it's the logic. There's no way around it. It just is.

This answer makes no sense and is entirely inaccurate.

The DB initiated contact by putting his hands on the receiver's chest.

WR initiated contact by slowing and reaching around. The DB tried to avoid contact.

BTW, I missed where you addressed the fact that the Official standing right next to the play did not throw a flag on it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just for that, I think Theo's right! Proceed Theo.

:laugh2:


Never figured on seeing this day come.

 

[theogt]

The rules, however, do allow for incidental contact.

If there's a bona fide attempt.

I did not say forced. I said initiated contact. Your reaching now.

How else could the receiver initiate the contact of the corner putting his hands on the receivers chest?

It is not my definition. It is the definition. If you have another, I'm open to reading it.

Absurd or not, that's what the rule says.

No, the rule says a bona fide attempt, just to prevent this specific type of play. Simply putting your arm out is not a bona fide attempt.

This answer makes no sense and is entirely inaccurate.

It's accurate. And it makes sense. You're just not that into logic. And that's okay. Not many people are.

WR initiated contact by slowing and reaching around. The DB tried to avoid contact.

Now THAT is hilarious. If I'm tailgating you driving down the road and you slam on your breaks and I rear-end you. Did you initiate the contact? Will you get blamed by the insurance company?

Hell no. The cornerback had his hands on the receiver's chest. He initiated that contact.

BTW, I missed where you addressed the fact that the Official standing right next to the play did not throw a flag on it.

Why would I address it? It's completely irrelevant as to whether or not the play was PI. We have all the direct evidence we need to determine whether it's PI or not. Any circumstantial evidence is completely unnnecessary.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If there's a bona fide attempt.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE

Definitions of bona fide on the Web:

*Undertaken in good faith; "a bona fide offer"

Here is the definition and the link for the definition. Undertake in good faith would seem to mean to make a good faith attempt to make a play on the ball. Now, nowhere in the rule does it say the player must see the ball. It only says that he has to be making an honest effert or "bona fide" effert to make a play. I don't think that there is any question, the player was doing that.

How else could the receiver initiate the contact of the corner putting his hands on the receivers chest?

The answer to this question, which by the way is very confusing in the way it's stated is, the WR should not initiate contact. To initiate contact would be a foul agaist the WR. See how this works?

No, the rule says a bona fide attempt, just to prevent this specific type of play. Simply putting your arm out is not a bona fide attempt.

The DB didn't just put his arm out. The DB attempted to turn, locate the ball and make a play on it. That is very different from your depiction of the play. Watch it again. That's exactly what the DB tried to do.

It's accurate. And it makes sense. You're just not that into logic. And that's okay. Not many people are.

I don't think this has anything to do with logic. The term "Logic" would imply a certain amount of inference. The process of trying to reason out a thing when facts are not available. In this situation, the facts are present and there is no need to use "Logic" to try and fill in the facts. When logic is required, I utilize it. When the facts are already present, I simply review the facts and apply a measure of intelligence. As usual, that has done the trick here. Perhaps you should try harder to understand when to use Logic and when to simply look at the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. I think that if you do that, you may find that many more people are, in fact, using logic when the situation actually requires it. See how easy that is?

Now THAT is hilarious. If I'm tailgating you driving down the road and you slam on your breaks and I rear-end you. Did you initiate the contact? Will you get blamed by the insurance company?

If your asking me, the answer to this question is yes. I will be blamed and you will also be blamed. To put it more accurately, both insurances will incure costs and both drives will see an increase in rates.

Now, the real question would be, how does insurance and freeway driving apply to football and the passing game? I suspect you are using that famous "Logic" that only you seem to get and all of us just are mentally incapable of understanding.

Hell no. The cornerback had his hands on the receiver's chest. He initiated that contact.

I don't agree.

Why would I address it? It's completely irrelevant as to whether or not the play was PI. We have all the direct evidence we need to determine whether it's PI or not. Any circumstantial evidence is completely unnnecessary.

I think the answer your struggling to avoid is that you have no answer. The fact of the matter is that the official who was in a perfect position to make the call saw no foul while the official across the field, not in the best position to make the call threw the flag. I think that pretty much sums it right up.

 

[theogt]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE

Definitions of bona fide on the Web:

*Undertaken in good faith; "a bona fide offer"

Here is the definition and the link for the definition. Undertake in good faith would seem to mean to make a good faith attempt to make a play on the ball. Now, nowhere in the rule does it say the player must see the ball. It only says that he has to be making an honest effert or "bona fide" effert to make a play. I don't think that there is any question, the player was doing that.

How can you make a good faith attempt on the ball if you don't know where the ball is? Seems like that's precisely what a bad faith attempt would be. You don't know where it is, so you're just sticking your hand out while you're making contact with the receiver.

The answer to this question, which by the way is very confusing in the way it's stated is, the WR should not initiate contact. To initiate contact would be a foul agaist the WR. See how this works?

I'm not asking whether the receiver should initiate contact. I'm asking how he could initiate contact that consists of the corners hands being on the receiver's chest.

Very obviously, the corner initiated the contact by putting his hands on the receiver's chest. There really is no way you can argue around this.

The DB didn't just put his arm out. The DB attempted to turn, locate the ball and make a play on it. That is very different from your depiction of the play. Watch it again. That's exactly what the DB tried to do.

Did the DB know where the ball was when he initiated the contact?

No, he didn't.

Could he have possibly located the ball or known where the ball was?

No, he couldn't.

Did he even know for sure that a ball was there?

No, he didn't.

Tell me, how can you make a "good faith" attempt on a ball when you don't even know whether it exists?

You can't. Thus, PI.

I don't think this has anything to do with logic. The term "Logic" would imply a certain amount of inference. The process of trying to reason out a thing when facts are not available. In this situation, the facts are present and there is no need to use "Logic" to try and fill in the facts. When logic is required, I utilize it. When the facts are already present, I simply review the facts and apply a measure of intelligence. As usual, that has done the trick here. Perhaps you should try harder to understand when to use Logic and when to simply look at the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. I think that if you do that, you may find that many more people are, in fact, using logic when the situation actually requires it. See how easy that is?

Of course you don't think it has anything to do with logic, because you don't understand what logic is, and that's very clearly demonstrated by this paragraph.

If your asking me, the answer to this question is yes. I will be blamed and you will also be blamed. To put it more accurately, both insurances will incure costs and both drives will see an increase in rates.

This is not true. I would be at fault and my insurance would be legally required to pay for the damages.

Now, the real question would be, how does insurance and freeway driving apply to football and the passing game? I suspect you are using that famous "Logic" that only you seem to get and all of us just are mentally incapable of understanding.

You're exactly right. I'm using an analogy to show how the logical conclusion is derived from a similar set of facts.

I don't agree.

You can't possibly think that the receiver initiated the contact when the hands of the corner are on the receiver's chest.

You just don't want to lose the argument and are willing to say the dumbest things in order to prevent having to admit to yourself you lost.

I think the answer your struggling to avoid is that you have no answer. The fact of the matter is that the official who was in a perfect position to make the call saw no foul while the official across the field, not in the best position to make the call threw the flag. I think that pretty much sums it right up.

Why would it matter if I had an answer? It doesn't impact in any way whatsoever the rule or what happened on the field.

This a logical fallacy, but I'll play your game. One official didn't pull the flag immediately. The other official did. If the first official, who didn't pull the flag immediately would have been convinced there was no PI, he would have argued the point and they would have pulled the flag.

But they didn't, so very clearly both officials agreed that there was PI.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How can you make a good faith attempt on the ball if you don't know where the ball is? Seems like that's precisely what a bad faith attempt would be. You don't know where it is, so you're just sticking your hand out while you're making contact with the receiver.

No, this is inaccurate. The accurate discription is that the DB did know where the ball was. The ball was in the air and coming his way. He didn't know exactly where the ball was and he was in the process making a play on it. Part of making a play on the ball is turning and trying to locate the exact position and catching it. Had the DB never turned and just face guarded or waived his arms, then I could see your point. That is not what happened. The DB attempted to try and make a play on the ball. That is all that is required according to the definition of Bona Fide and the rule.

I'm not asking whether the receiver should initiate contact. I'm asking how he could initiate contact that consists of the corners hands being on the receiver's chest.

The DB was in the process of turning to make a play on the ball. The WR stopped and moved into the WR trying to catch the ball going through the DB. The DBs off hand was in contact with the WRs chest but it was because of the WRs actions and his attempt to catch the ball. He initiated the contact. Simple really if you just watch the play.

Very obviously, the corner initiated the contact by putting his hands on the receiver's chest. There really is no way you can argue around this.

Obviouse to you perhaps. Not very obviouse to the official standing next to the play, most everybody who watched the play, the announcing team who called the game or the SEC who supsended the officiating crew. I think this might be another one of those situations where you see logic and fail to understand why nobody else does.

Did the DB know where the ball was when he initiated the contact?

No, he didn't.

Could he have possibly located the ball or known where the ball was?

No, he couldn't.

Did he even know for sure that a ball was there?

No, he didn't.

Tell me, how can you make a "good faith" attempt on a ball when you don't even know whether it exists?

You can't. Thus, PI.[

First, he did not anitiate the contact. The WR did. Second, you can't know if he did or not. He clearly knew the ball was in the air or he never would have turned. You can't know if he knew where the ball was or not. Only the DB knows that but the question is irrelivant. The DB does not need to know where the ball is according to the rule. He only needs to be making an honest attempt to make a play on it.

Of course you don't think it has anything to do with logic, because you don't understand what logic is, and that's very clearly demonstrated by this paragraph.

Perhaps your correct. Perhaps your incorrect. Fortunately for me, logic has nothing to do with this call. The evidence is there. It requires no logic. All it requires is intellectual integrity. I know what that is and I also know that you are not using it.

This is not true. I would be at fault and my insurance would be legally required to pay for the damages.

Hey, if you want to be right about something, go ahead. Be my guest and take claim to being right about this. In fact, I suggest you go out and prove your theory. If your right and your rates don't go up, then I'll be the first to congratulate you.

You're exactly right. I'm using an analogy to show how the logical conclusion is derived from a similar set of facts.

Simularity? Like, apples and Ancient Buddhist Shaolin Monkes from Henan Province China? Yeah, I see your point.

You can't possibly think that the receiver initiated the contact when the hands of the corner are on the receiver's chest.

Yes, I can. I can because that's exactly what happened.

You just don't want to lose the argument and are willing to say the dumbest things in order to prevent having to admit to yourself you lost.

I think your a bit confused. This is not an arguement. Your pretty much alone. Most people see this and say "Bad Call". It is only you who is shouting in the wilderness Theo. There is no arguement to win or lose her. Their is rational and irrational. I know which side of this discussion I am on. You know too but you won't accept it. Keep shouting if it makes you feel better.

Why would it matter if I had an answer? It doesn't impact in any way whatsoever the rule or what happened on the field.

This a logical fallacy, but I'll play your game. One official didn't pull the flag immediately. The other official did. If the first official, who didn't pull the flag immediately would have been convinced there was no PI, he would have argued the point and they would have pulled the flag.

But they didn't, so very clearly both officials agreed that there was PI.

It matters because the official in the best position to make the call saw no foul. He didn't hesitate to pull his flag. He didn't pull a flag at all because he didn't see a foul. The fact that the call was incorrect and the officials didn't huddle together and correct the call contributes to the reasons the SEC suspended the crew. They should have come together and made the correct ruling. They should have picked up the flag. Had they done this, they probably don't get suspended. The only thing clear about the what happened on that play was that none of those officials were good enough to make the right call. That's unfortunate but it's the truth.

 

[theogt]

No, this is inaccurate. The accurate discription is that the DB did know where the ball was. The ball was in the air and coming his way. He didn't know exactly where the ball was and he was in the process making a play on it. Part of making a play on the ball is turning and trying to locate the exact position and catching it. Had the DB never turned and just face guarded or waived his arms, then I could see your point. That is not what happened. The DB attempted to try and make a play on the ball. That is all that is required according to the definition of Bona Fide and the rule.

The DB had no idea where the ball was. He didn't even know if a ball was there. You can't make a play on the ball if you don't know where the ball is.

The DB was in the process of turning to make a play on the ball. The WR stopped and moved into the WR trying to catch the ball going through the DB. The DBs off hand was in contact with the WRs chest but it was because of the WRs actions and his attempt to catch the ball. He initiated the contact. Simple really if you just watch the play.

The DB put his hands on the WRs chest. The DB initiated the contact. It doesn't matter one bit if the WR was slowing down. You can't contact the WR. If you put your hands on the WRs chest, you're initiating contact. There's no way around that. Sorry.

Obviouse to you perhaps. Not very obviouse to the official standing next to the play, most everybody who watched the play, the announcing team who called the game or the SEC who supsended the officiating crew. I think this might be another one of those situations where you see logic and fail to understand why nobody else does.

Uh....it was obvious to the officials that called the play.

First, he did not anitiate the contact. The WR did. Second, you can't know if he did or not. He clearly knew the ball was in the air or he never would have turned. You can't know if he knew where the ball was or not. Only the DB knows that but the question is irrelivant. The DB does not need to know where the ball is according to the rule. He only needs to be making an honest attempt to make a play on it.

LOL @ you insisting that a WR could initiate contact when the DB is very clearly putting his arms forward onto the WRs chest.

Do you realize how stupid you sound saying that?

Perhaps your correct. Perhaps your incorrect. Fortunately for me, logic has nothing to do with this call. The evidence is there. It requires no logic. All it requires is intellectual integrity. I know what that is and I also know that you are not using it.

Logic has everything to do with it. It's a rule. It has a logical, mechanical, certain application. This is what lawyers and referees do. They apply the rules to the facts and logic has everything to do with such application.

You're not trained in logic, so it gets lost on you.

Hey, if you want to be right about something, go ahead. Be my guest and take claim to being right about this. In fact, I suggest you go out and prove your theory. If your right and your rates don't go up, then I'll be the first to congratulate you.

Apparently you know as little about pass interference as you do about car insurance and rear-ending someone.

Simularity? Like, apples and Ancient Buddhist Shaolin Monkes from Henan Province China? Yeah, I see your point.

I'm glad you see my point.

Yes, I can. I can because that's exactly what happened.

:laugh2:

I've seen people argue some pretty stupid things on here for the sake of argument, but this really takes the cake.

Congratulations.

I think your a bit confused.

No, I'm not.

This is not an arguement.

Yes it is.

Your pretty much alone. Most people see this and say "Bad Call". It is only you who is shouting in the wilderness Theo.

Doesn't matter, but nice logical fallacy. Whether it's a bad call or not has nothing to do with what you think or what others think. The rule is the rule and facts are the facts. It was pass interference.

There is no arguement to win or lose her.

Yes, there is.

Their is rational and irrational.

ANd you're being irrational.

I know which side of this discussion I am on.

Yup, the irrational side.

You know too but you won't accept it.

Irrational, for the win!

Keep shouting if it makes you feel better.

No shouting. Just laughter.

At you.

It matters because the official in the best position to make the call saw no foul. He didn't hesitate to pull his flag. He didn't pull a flag at all because he didn't see a foul. The fact that the call was incorrect and the officials didn't huddle together and correct the call contributes to the reasons the SEC suspended the crew. They should have come together and made the correct ruling. They should have picked up the flag. Had they done this, they probably don't get suspended. The only thing clear about the what happened on that play was that none of those officials were good enough to make the right call. That's unfortunate but it's the truth.

Why didn't he argue the call? Did he not disagree with the call? You can't argue that his not pulling the flag means that he agrees with you and then argue that him not arguing the point with the other judge doesn't me he disagrees with you.

Well, sure, you can argue whatever nonsense you want to. Because you do -- argue nonsense, that is.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The DB had no idea where the ball was. He didn't even know if a ball was there. You can't make a play on the ball if you don't know where the ball is.

You can say it all you want but it's simply untrue. You don't know if the DB new where the ball was or not. He was clearly turning to make a play. That's the fact of the matter. Sorry.

The DB put his hands on the WRs chest. The DB initiated the contact. It doesn't matter one bit if the WR was slowing down. You can't contact the WR. If you put your hands on the WRs chest, you're initiating contact. There's no way around that. Sorry.

The WR reached around the DB. The DB didn't initiate contact with a hand on the chest.

Uh....it was obvious to the officials that called the play.

Just like it was clear to the official across the field that it was clear the PF call was correct but the official right on top of the play understood their was no foul. OK gotcha.

LOL @ you insisting that a WR could initiate contact when the DB is very clearly putting his arms forward onto the WRs chest.

Laugh it up but you know what they say. If your the only one laugh, the joke is probably on you.

Do you realize how stupid you sound saying that?

Oh wait, let me guess. You don't see how it's so obviouse to you and nobody else seems to get it. Never heard that before.

Logic has everything to do with it. It's a rule. It has a logical, mechanical, certain application. This is what lawyers and referees do. They apply the rules to the facts and logic has everything to do with such application.

Yes, because every discussion with Theo is logical.

You're not trained in logic, so it gets lost on you.

Last resort to a desperate arguement. Convince yourself that we can't possibly be right because we are all inferrior. What's this new concept you call Logic?

Apparently you know as little about pass interference as you do about car insurance and rear-ending someone.

Of course Theo. Of course your right.

I'm glad you see my point.

:laugh2:

I've seen people argue some pretty stupid things on here for the sake of argument, but this really takes the cake.

Congratulations.

No, I'm not.

Yes it is.

Doesn't matter, but nice logical fallacy. Whether it's a bad call or not has nothing to do with what you think or what others think. The rule is the rule and facts are the facts. It was pass interference.

Yes, there is.

ANd you're being irrational.

Yup, the irrational side.

Irrational, for the win!

No shouting. Just laughter.

At you.

Why didn't he argue the call? Did he not disagree with the call? You can't argue that his not pulling the flag means that he agrees with you and then argue that him not arguing the point with the other judge doesn't me he disagrees with you.

Well, sure, you can argue whatever nonsense you want to. Because you do -- argue nonsense, that is.

OK Theo.