Super Bowl LII Thread

[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

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

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.

Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by MTK

Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

Kevin Sheehan made a point, sort of joking but there's something to it: they should have 90 seconds max to review. Like if it takes 5minutes to review, it's not conclusive, don't overturn.

I'm not sure I agree with him. Cause sometimes it can take time to see a small thing and that'll still be conclusive.

But I'd like them to stress the fact replay should be here to support the work of officials, not to question every decision they make with ever improving technology.

[irish]

Originally Posted by MTK

Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

I agree that replay should be to overturn obviously bad calls but this past season replay was used to get things perfect. Then suddenly in the Super Bowl it didn't have to be perfect anymore. So much for consistency.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by irish

I agree that replay should be to overturn obviously bad calls but this past season replay was used to get things perfect. Then suddenly in the Super Bowl it didn't have to be perfect anymore. So much for consistency.

Between the regular season and the SB, Vince announcer the XFL, and threw massive shades at the NFL for the catch rule, then Goodell came out and said the catch rule needed to change, that he wanted fewer and shorter reviews etc... So on the biggest stage of all with everyone watching he had to back up what he said. If this becomes the norm I like it.