Official Post Game Thread- Pats beat the Bills

[Ring 6]

YES. I can read. YOU clearly can't. Which is why you proceeded to absolutely get wrong what the quoted section stated.

What I said is correct

 

[Tony2046]

No. I was asking whether Ashley even has a chance to watch the game with all the moderation required on the GDT, but please go on with your umbrage taking if that works for you. It seems to be all the rage these days.

Clearly a misunderstanding here between you and @SammyBlueCat .

 

[1960Pats]

Yes. He's obviously at the network for another reason. But, whether he's there to parrot the NFL company line or not, that has nothing to do with whether or not he knows what officials are looking for on OPI calls.



Yeah, that's obviously not the case.

Blandino's there to let fans know what 345 Park Ave wants them to know. Some of them buy whatever it is he's selling. I don't.

Blandino, a man who never officiated a game, isn't the best guy to explain OPI calls to anyone.

 

[Tottie]

 

[DaBruinz]

What I said is correct

No. What you said was 100% false. I quoted the rule specifically for you because what you said was the exact opposite of what the rule states. Here is what you said.

You are reading it wrong. It says a player with an eligible number reporting as ineligible cannot be within the 5 person box not that an ineligible number reporting as eligible cannot

Here is what the rule states:

An offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver who reports as ineligible must line up within the normal five-player core formed by ineligible players. The player cannot be more than two players removed from the middle player of a seven-player line

What you stated is that an eligible number reporting as ineligible CANNOT be within the 5 person box. That is FALSE. The rule specifically states that an eligible number reporting as ineligible MUST be within the 5 person box.

The last part where you claim "not than an ineligible number reporting as eligible cannot" doesn't save the first part from being wrong. No matter how you twist it.

Not only did we have an Ineligible number reporting as Eligible, but supposedly we had TWO ineligibles reporting as Eligible. Which would have made the formation illegal because you must have 5 ineligible players in the "five-player core". And if they had an eligible player report as ineligible, that player was more than 2 players from the center of the "five-player core". Which would have made the formation illegal because the closest that a player with an eligible number who could have reported as ineligible was 3 players away.

Sorry, but you've failed to put together any sort of cogent argument to support your claim.

 

[DaBruinz]

The section you and I both discussed is a “note.” I think “note” means “clarification” at 345 Park. It isn’t the actual rule. You interpretation might well be correct.

I don't know if it is or not. I was hoping some of the more knowledgeable fans here would chime in.. Such as @patfanken

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Could really go either way on intent. The ref has to call that though, or else “open to interpretation” disguised picks become the norm and you have to be consistent. Edelman interfered directly with the defender, and I think ref made the right call. Maybe it was an unfortunate coincidence. Brady sure did seem to know right where he was going with the ball though.

Just would like consistency. That play KC got away with last year in the AFCCG still angers me. Making illegal pick intent a gray area allows for that type of reffing bias.

 

[Ring 6]

Could really go either way on intent. The ref has to call that though, or else “open to interpretation” disguised picks become the norm and you have to be consistent. Edelman interfered directly with the defender, and I think ref made the right call. Maybe it was an unfortunate coincidence. Brady sure did seem to know right where he was going with the ball though.

Just would like consistency. That play KC got away with last year in the AFCCG still angers me. Making illegal pick intent a gray area allows for that type of reffing bias.

Warner agrees with me it’s a bad call. Edelman didn’t interfere with the defender, the defender interfered with Edelman.
Had Brady thrown to Edelman this would be blatant dpi.

 

[Ring 6]

No. What you said was 100% false. I quoted the rule specifically for you because what you said was the exact opposite of what the rule states. Here is what you said.



Here is what the rule states:




What you stated is that an eligible number reporting as ineligible CANNOT be within the 5 person box. That is FALSE. The rule specifically states that an eligible number reporting as ineligible MUST be within the 5 person box.

The last part where you claim "not than an ineligible number reporting as eligible cannot" doesn't save the first part from being wrong. No matter how you twist it.

Not only did we have an Ineligible number reporting as Eligible, but supposedly we had TWO ineligibles reporting as Eligible. Which would have made the formation illegal because you must have 5 ineligible players in the "five-player core". And if they had an eligible player report as ineligible, that player was more than 2 players from the center of the "five-player core". Which would have made the formation illegal because the closest that a player with an eligible number who could have reported as ineligible was 3 players away.

Sorry, but you've failed to put together any sort of cogent argument to support your claim.

I did mistype when I said cannot but I cleared that up later. In any event the rule about a player wearing an eligible number reporting as ineligible is clearly not what is in effect here, which is what I obviously was trying to say.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Warner agrees with me it’s a bad call. Edelman didn’t interfere with the defender, the defender interfered with Edelman.
Had Brady thrown to Edelman this would be blatant dpi.

Well, not DPI, because it was a legal chuck before the ball was thrown, but the receiver has to be allowed to run in a straight line, just like defenders have to be able to maintain position. It's a hard call, like charging/blocking in basketball but with looser standards that make it even harder to officiate, because it's a contact sport with legal contact within five yards.

Whoever was doing the official explanation of the rules on the air spouted nonsense about Edelman bracing for contact, as if a WR is required to make themselves a defenseless receiver and land in the concussion protocol (but for good reason) anytime a defender wants to run through them within five yards of the LOS. The league has screwed the pooch on this rule (among others). There are literally hundreds of examples of plays like this not being called OPI since the rule was clarified to allow picks within one yard of the LOS. Watch any Rams, Eagles, or Chiefs games from the last few years, and you'll see an example. They simply don't have a clear, consistently enforceable definition if they choose to defend the call against Edelman.

Watson, on the other hand, clearly committed OPI. He went two yards downfield and blocked a man attempting to defend a pass. That might have slid if he were a foot closer to the LOS, but the combination of depth downfield and him blocking instead of running a pattern made it an easy call.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, not DPI, because it was a legal chuck before the ball was thrown, but the receiver has to be allowed to run in a straight line, just like defenders have to be able to maintain position. It's a hard call, like charging/blocking in basketball but with looser standards that make it even harder to officiate, because it's a contact sport with legal contact within five yards.

Whoever was doing the official explanation of the rules on the air spouted nonsense about Edelman bracing for contact, as if a WR is required to make themselves a defenseless receiver and land in the concussion protocol (but for good reason) anytime a defender wants to run through them within five yards of the LOS. The league has screwed the pooch on this rule (among others). There are literally hundreds of examples of plays like this not being called OPI since the rule was clarified to allow picks within one yard of the LOS. Watch any Rams, Eagles, or Chiefs games from the last few years, and you'll see an example. They simply don't have a clear, consistently enforceable definition if they choose to defend the call against Edelman.

Watson, on the other hand, clearly committed OPI. He went two yards downfield and blocked a man attempting to defend a pass. That might have slid if he were a foot closer to the LOS, but the combination of depth downfield and him blocking instead of running a pattern made it an easy call.

If the ball was thrown to him and in the air when contact was made its dpi.
Clearly it’s a terrible call because Edelman is simply running a route.

 

[Zarozzor]

A rookie got into the head of the 2nd best corner in the AFC East (maybe the league) by being too physical

 

[DaBruinz]

I did mistype when I said cannot but I cleared that up later. In any event the rule about a player wearing an eligible number reporting as ineligible is clearly not what is in effect here, which is what I obviously was trying to say.

You didn't clear anything up. You're a damn liar. Go away

 

[Ring 6]

You didn't clear anything up. You're a damn liar. Go away

Of course I did you just can’t see it because you won’t accept that the rule you quoted gas to do with eligible players reporting as ineligible and the play involved ineligible players reporting as eligible
You are quoting a rule that doesn’t apply to the situation. Why you can’t see that is mind numbing.

 

[captain stone]

It's OPI to me because Edelman never looks for the ball nor does he make an effort to avoid contact, and that is his position coach's fault for not teaching them how to better sell those picks...very frustrating to watch happen over & over agin...

 

[DaBruinz]

Of course I did you just can’t see it because you won’t accept that the rule you quoted gas to do with eligible players reporting as ineligible and the play involved ineligible players reporting as eligible
You are quoting a rule that doesn’t apply to the situation. Why you can’t see that is mind numbing.

You truly are obtuse.

Rule 5 deals with both ineligible and eligible players. Not one or the other.

As @TomPatriot pointed out, NOTES tend to be clarifications to the rule, not the rule themselves. He even stated that my interpretation could very well be correct.

You NEVER posted a clarification. You just claimed that you were right and I was wrong despite the fact your initial response ran contrary to the Note. And you claiming you miss typed is a crock of garbage.

When other posters like are agreeing with me regarding your posts, you should step back and take note.

All you've done is make an unsupported claim that I was reading the rules wrong. You never offered up anything to support that the play was OK or the player was lined up ok or anything of the sort. You made no cogent argument which tracks with your mind being numb from not understanding the situation.

 

[DaBruinz]

It's OPI to me because Edelman never looks for the ball nor does he make an effort to avoid contact, and that is his position coach's fault for not teaching them how to better sell those picks...very frustrating to watch happen over & over agin...

The receiver doesn't have to make an effort to avoid contact when he's running his route. Nor does he have to look for the ball. To ME, it looked clearly like Hyde just when full bore at Edelman hoping to blow him up if he was the intended receiver. And Warner's take on it makes even more sense.