Super Bowl LII Thread

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by MTK

They should have just went with this lol

lmao

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

We all knew OBJ was a little fruity but wow, he just let it all hang out

So how is Odell a fruit but not anyone one else in the commercial?

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So how is Odell a fruit but not anyone one else in the commercial?

I think it's pretty well known in the social media world that Odell being a little fruity is pretty normal now. He hasn't ever denied it either

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

I think it's pretty well known in the social media world that Odell being a little fruity is pretty normal now. He hasn't ever denied it either

Thing is it isn't and he isn't but...........

HATERS gonna hate.



Meet Odell Beckham Jr Girlfriend Poly Ferfeli

[calia]

I am hard pressed to think of anything I care less about that OBJ's sexual orientation.

Back to football, I was really hoping that the Eagles would lose a heartbreaker at the end -- their fans are unbearable and are destined to become more so between now and the next time we beat them, which sadly may be forever from now if the team doesn't do better with talent management. It was an exciting game. Brady three for 505 yards, 3 TDs, and no INTS . . . and lost. And they had something like 115 yards on the ground. If you were told beforehand that the Pats would hit those numbers, you'd think it would be a blowout win for them. Crazy. No defense anywhere to be found.

Watching both teams march up and down the field made me think we're pretty far from being able to do that at the moment. We really need RB help and WR help, and our D needs help in most places except OLB where we seem pretty set. The Eagles were putrid a few seasons ago -- heck, they hadn't beaten the Redskins in ages until this season. It really illustrates how crappy our FO is. To be sure, there's always a bit of luck involved in these things. But we sure could use some this offseason.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Thing is it isn't and he isn't but...........

HATERS gonna hate.



Meet Odell Beckham Jr Girlfriend Poly Ferfeli

I dont hate and yeah she is smoking of course

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by calia

I am hard pressed to think of anything I care less about that OBJ's sexual orientation.

Back to football, I was really hoping that the Eagles would lose a heartbreaker at the end -- their fans are unbearable and are destined to become more so between now and the next time we beat them, which sadly may be forever from now if the team doesn't do better with talent management. It was an exciting game. Brady three for 505 yards, 3 TDs, and no INTS . . . and lost. And they had something like 115 yards on the ground. If you were told beforehand that the Pats would hit those numbers, you'd think it would be a blowout win for them. Crazy. No defense anywhere to be found.

Watching both teams march up and down the field made me think we're pretty far from being able to do that at the moment. We really need RB help and WR help, and our D needs help in most places except OLB where we seem pretty set. The Eagles were putrid a few seasons ago -- heck, they hadn't beaten the Redskins in ages until this season. It really illustrates how crappy our FO is. To be sure, there's always a bit of luck involved in these things. But we sure could use some this offseason.

Eagles fans already talking about B2B lol ubreal, but I agree we aren't close as of today but things change fast in the nfl.

[Giantone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=xq3bLed1Zyk


Landon Collins gets into it.........


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=DA4CNdYCWNA

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by MTK

Yes the catch rule needs to be re-worked but I’m really getting tired of announcers in the booth complicating matters.

The Ertz play was pretty clear, he took 3 steps and dove for the end zone. The fact they were questioning it was annoying AF.

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

I dont see how you can agree with the Jesse James catch but thought the Clement's ruling was ok? Ball was obviously moving,that should have been a no catch under the current rule the way they have called it this year,but the rule is so fucking confusing,no consistency whatsoever,so no wonder it's confusing to the announcers,and the Ertz catch I thought was a catch and run,but I can see why Collingsworth could be confused after he couldnt believe the Clements call stood.

As for Brady,I was definitely pulling for him to pull it out.Haters gonna hate.That dude probably works harder then anybody at his game,takes extreme care of his body,demands accountability from his teammates,ultimate competitor.
AT 40 YEARS OLD!!! Wins MVP! I dont think he is truly appreciated for how good he is,has anybody at QB position ever come close to winning MVP at his age before? Shreds Phillys defense for over 500 yards in a Super Bowl! And he had an off game lol
Dude is unbelievable

[MTK]

The ball moved a bit on Clement's TD but I feel like they got it right that's how it should be called. He still maintained control. Problem is we've seen too many plays like that get overturned. Stop with this idea every catch needs to be pristine.

With Ertz he was 110% a runner when he dove. I don't know what the confusion was all about.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

The ball moved a bit on Clement's TD but I feel like they got it right that's how it should be called. He still maintained control. Problem is we've seen too many plays like that get overturned. Stop with this idea every catch needs to be pristine.

With Ertz he was 110% a runner when he dove. I don't know what the confusion was all about.

Remember the days when "the ground can not cause a fumble" it was that fucking simple.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

Maybe we can agree on your definition of the catch. Though I think it would need to be detailed just a little bit more.

Wouldn't it create quite a bump in fumbles called ?

Anyway I think the "control of the ball" part of the rule inherently introduces a time element. You control the ball because it doesn't move for a certain amount of time. Even if it's a fraction of a second. I don't see how the time element could be entirely dismissed.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

I dont see how you can agree with the Jesse James catch but thought the Clement's ruling was ok? Ball was obviously moving,that should have been a no catch under the current rule the way they have called it this year,but the rule is so fucking confusing,no consistency whatsoever,so no wonder it's confusing to the announcers,and the Ertz catch I thought was a catch and run,but I can see why Collingsworth could be confused after he couldnt believe the Clements call stood.

For me (and again as the rule is written now, not saying the rule is perfect) it's simple:

-On the Jesse James overturned TD, he catches the ball going to the ground, and the ball moves when it hits the ground . On replay, it's conclusive. You can't argue that the ball did not move. You can argue it didn't move much, but it did move when it hit the ground, he lost control of the ball because of the ground. Conclusive evidence = overturn the call.

-On the Clement's TD, the ball never hits the ground, it's in an awkward position but you can argue about wether he had control or not. Remember you can control the ball with you butt and you ear, doesn't matter. So I agree you can say he lost control before setting 2 feet a second time, but it's not conclusive. Because you can also argue about it. So I like the fact the call stand.

I just wished they were more consistent on letting call stand when nothing's conclusive.