Dolphins: Pats used illegal formaton. Sending grievance to NFL?

[Jackson 2]

The league has, in the past, acknowledged official's errors. So, if they concluded that the play had been miscalled, it would probably be more accurate to describe it as a "slap on the officials' wrists," not the Pats'.

OK, thanks. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic (not that it's beneath me at times) it's just that lots of people have been saying or implying that the team would be punished, which made no sense to me.

 

[Joker]

FORMATIONGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[patfanken]

This is the ULTIMATE non-story. I'm not sure who's worse, Volin for trying to create the story when there clearly is none, or those of us who keep this tread alive by desperately trying to defend a position that needs no defending.

 

[borg]

Interesting, when I go to either the Miami Herald or Sun Sentinel I don't find anything about this story. The only person that seems to be interested in making a big deal about this is Ben Volin. Volin grew up in Florida and was a Dolphins beat writer for several years, and discounts responses to him that Collins was off the line.

A writer reports that a team is submitting a complaint to league offices about a disputed formation....and the reaction here is to blame the writer??? Really?

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

FORMATIONGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No doubt the dolphins will say the Patriots knew the downhill effect it would have on the game, thus they (porpoise-ly) lined up like that.

/Sorry for the bad pun, but someone had to do it.

 

[Joker]

this could be a first second AND third round pick forfeiture....I knew that dominating victory was too good to be true...now we will feel the absolute wrath of Oberfuhrerreichstagmarshalcommisardell...

 

[Deus Irae]

A writer reports that a team is submitting a complaint to league offices about a disputed formation....and the reaction here is to blame the writer??? Really?

If this surprises you, you must be new here...

 

[BradyFTW!]

A writer reports that a team is submitting a complaint to league offices about a disputed formation....and the reaction here is to blame the writer??? Really?

'The writer' isn't being blamed for reporting that a grievance was filed. He's being blamed for being dumb and/or biased enough to argue that the grievance has merit when it clearly, objectively--with photographic evidence and everything--does not.

 

[Deus Irae]

'The writer' isn't being blamed for reporting that a grievance was filed. He's being blamed for being dumb and/or biased enough to argue that the grievance has merit when it clearly, objectively--with photographic evidence and everything--does not.

No photograph in this thread has proven that the grievance has no merit.

 

[Gameoverluke]

Haha this is to funny, one blocked field goal does not change the 24 to nothing 3rd quarter

 

[OhExaulted1]

No photograph in this thread has proven that the grievance has no merit.

OTOH, no photograph in this thread has proven a grievence has merit.

 

[Deus Irae]

OTOH, no photograph in this thread has proven a grievence has merit.

Last night, Volin noted that there was not currently any clear angle, and that it would have to wait on the all-22.

Volin's gotten this right. The people in this thread have just done the usual foolishness in response to a media report they don't like.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

'The writer' isn't being blamed for reporting that a grievance was filed. He's being blamed for being dumb and/or biased enough to argue that the grievance has merit when it clearly, objectively--with photographic evidence and everything--does not.

FWIW, the "photographic evidence" that I've seen suggests to me that he was very close to being too far forward, but it's inconclusive. So, the ruling on the field "is what it is," unless the League's review from presumably better angles suggests the wrong call was made, in which case nothing will change anyway.

In other words, I don't think this is an unreasonable topic of discussion, just a futile one if you are a Dolphins fan and more or less a waste of time if you are a Pats fan.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Haha this is to funny, one blocked field goal does not change the 24 to nothing 3rd quarter

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[borg]

'The writer' isn't being blamed for reporting that a grievance was filed. He's being blamed for being dumb and/or biased enough to argue that the grievance has merit when it clearly, objectively--with photographic evidence and everything--does not.

Please post Volin's statement in which you claim he says the "grievance has merit ".

From Volin's Twitter acct: "Is Jamie Collins too close to the line of scrimmage? I don't know. Rulebook doesn't say anything about foot placement"

A far cry from arguing the "grievance has merit ".

 

[BradyFTW!]

No photograph in this thread has proven that the grievance has no merit.

You're moving the goalposts. If Volin's claim was that "this grievance has not been proven to be without merit", that would mean something. But what he said was Volin said was that "Collins' feet appear to be within the DLs feet", which is not only untrue, but also not really relevant since even he eventually acknowledged that even if that was true it still wouldn't constitute a violation of the rule in question.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Please post Volin's statement in which you claim he says the "grievance has merit ".

https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/544601119813804034

 

[Deus Irae]

You're moving the goalposts. If Volin's claim was that "this grievance has not been proven to be without merit", that would mean something. But what he said was Volin said was that "Collins' feet appear to be within the DLs feet", which is not only clearly untrue, but also not really relevant since even he eventually acknowledged that even if that was true that wouldn't make him a defensive lineman by rule.

I didn't move the goalposts at all. I already posted Volin posts on this, also, which included:

I don’t have an opinion on the play. Just reporting that the #Dolphins think it was illegal and have submitted it to the NFL for review

and

The camera angle doesn't give us a definitive answer. The All-22 tape tomorrow should give us a better idea of where Collins was lined up

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-grievance-to-nfl.1114255/page-2#post-4024859

You're wrong to claim I'm moving anything.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I didn't move the goalposts at all. You're. I already posted Volin posts on this, also, which included:



and



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-grievance-to-nfl.1114255/page-2#post-4024859

You're just wrong.

All that tweet shows it that he backtracked, because he pretty clearly gave an opinion in the tweet that I posted. And then he gave another opinion later when he claimed that the placement of Collins' right foot is what matters. Which he also later backtracked from, since he was wrong yet again. He backtracks a lot when proven wrong (see: his tweets about Hightower's knee last week).

He's wrong, and you're wrong if you believe that he hasn't already expressed a clear opinion on this. You complain about the criticism that he takes, but that criticism is what forces him to backtrack into the (eventually) correct positions that you're now defending--and which, by the way, nobody argued against to begin with.

He also tweeted

But his R foot might be within the DL’s feet. That’s what matters​

and then later conceded that it actually doesn't matter:

Is Jamie Collins too close to the line of scrimmage? I don't know. Rulebook doesnt say anything about foot placement ​

Yet again, he took a stand, was proven wrong, and backtracked. For the third time this week. So here's the timeline of his evolving opinion:

• Volin's opinion: Collins' feet (plural) appear to be within the linemen's feet. Response: Look at the ****ing screenshot, his left foot is clearly a yard-plus behind anyone on the line.
• Volin's new opinion: His right foot might be within the DL's feet, and this is what matters (ie: if it's true, the grievance has merit). Response: Even if it hypothetically is true, that wouldn't mean the grievance has merit, since your whole "within the DL's feet" argument is completely arbitrary and has no basis in the rulebook.
• Volin's newest opinion: The rulebook doesn't say anything about foot placement after all, so even if Collins' feet are within the DL's feet, which is a position that I've been arguing (with progressively less certainty) throughout the past day, that still means basically nothing.

 

[Deus Irae]

All that tweet shows it that he backtracked, because he pretty clearly gave an opinion in the tweet that I posted. And then he gave another opinion later when he claimed that the placement of Collins' right foot is what matters. Which he also later backtracked from, since he was wrong yet again. He backtracks a lot when proven wrong (see: his tweets about Hightower's knee last week).

He's wrong, and you're wrong if you believe that he hasn't already expressed a clear opinion on this. You complain about the criticism that he takes, but that criticism is what forces him to backtrack into the (eventually) correct positions that you're now defending--and which, by the way, nobody argued against to begin with.

He also tweeted

But his R foot might be within the DL’s feet. That’s what matters​

and then later conceded that it actually doesn't matter:

Is Jamie Collins too close to the line of scrimmage? I don't know. Rulebook doesnt say anything about foot placement ​

Yet again, he took a stand, was proven wrong, and backtracked. For the third time this week. So here's the timeline of his evolving opinion:

• Volin's opinion: Collins' feet (plural) appear to be within the linemen's feet. Response: Look at the ****ing screenshot, his left foot is clearly a yard-plus behind anyone on the line.
• Volin's new opinion: His right foot might be within the DL's feet, and this is what matters (ie: if it's true, the grievance has merit). Response: Even if it hypothetically is true, that wouldn't mean the grievance has merit, since your whole "within the DL's feet" argument is completely arbitrary and has no basis in the rulebook.
• Volin's newest opinion: The rulebook doesn't say anything about foot placement after all, so even if Collins' feet are within the DL's feet, which is a position that I've been arguing (with progressively less certainty) throughout the past day, that still means basically nothing.

When did the word "might" become invisible to you?