Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I hate extra points. I think teams should always have to go for 2.

You must have loved the Lions/Eagles game from last season, then.

I think I'd be down with teams automatically getting 7 points on a TD but then they could "gamble" a point if they want that's essentially the same as going for two.

Lions fan here. I'm a masochist I guess.

I dig your idea too.

Whoops, sorry to bring up a loss. I figured Nebraska would be split between the Vikings and Chiefs, like Boise is with the Broncos and Seahawks. Of course I get unlucky on 32:1 odds.

Oh no worries. I'm tough to upset haha.

Nebraska is kind of a mixed bag for NFL. Lots of NFL fans but its a good mix really. Yes lots of Chiefs and Vikings fans as well as Broncos, Packers, Bears, Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, etc. Lots of Lions fans now days with Suh playing for them but I have been a fan since the early Barry Sanders days.

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I hate extra points. I think teams should always have to go for 2.

You must have loved the Lions/Eagles game from last season, then.

I think I'd be down with teams automatically getting 7 points on a TD but then they could "gamble" a point if they want that's essentially the same as going for two.

Lions fan here. I'm a masochist I guess.

I dig your idea too.

Whoops, sorry to bring up a loss. I figured Nebraska would be split between the Vikings and Chiefs, like Boise is with the Broncos and Seahawks. Of course I get unlucky on 32:1 odds.

Oh no worries. I'm tough to upset haha.

Nebraska is kind of a mixed bag for NFL. Lots of NFL fans but its a good mix really. Yes lots of Chiefs and Vikings fans as well as Broncos, Packers, Bears, Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, etc. Lots of Lions fans now days with Suh playing for them but I have been a fan since the early Barry Sanders days.

Sounds about right. Growing up in Nebraska there were a lot of Bears, Chiefs, Vikings, Cowboys, Broncos, and Packers fans.

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I hate extra points. I think teams should always have to go for 2.

You must have loved the Lions/Eagles game from last season, then.

I think I'd be down with teams automatically getting 7 points on a TD but then they could "gamble" a point if they want that's essentially the same as going for two.

Yeah I would be down with that.

Though i have to admit that the time between the TD, TD review, XP, commercial, kickoff/touchback, commercial is a fine time to hit the bathroom and grab a beer at the bar. Damn it can be like 10 minutes between plays

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I hate extra points. I think teams should always have to go for 2.

You must have loved the Lions/Eagles game from last season, then.

I think I'd be down with teams automatically getting 7 points on a TD but then they could "gamble" a point if they want that's essentially the same as going for two.

Yeah I would be down with that.

Though i have to admit that the time between the TD, TD review, XP, commercial, kickoff/touchback, commercial is a fine time to hit the bathroom and grab a beer at the bar. Damn it can be like 10 minutes between plays

The absolute worst is the commercial, kickoff, commercial sequence. Even worse when you are at the game.

For the very reason of people taking piss/beer breaks, I would think that the advertisers wouldn't want the commercial blocks to be so close together.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I hate extra points. I think teams should always have to go for 2.

You must have loved the Lions/Eagles game from last season, then.

I think I'd be down with teams automatically getting 7 points on a TD but then they could "gamble" a point if they want that's essentially the same as going for two.

Yeah I would be down with that.

Though i have to admit that the time between the TD, TD review, XP, commercial, kickoff/touchback, commercial is a fine time to hit the bathroom and grab a beer at the bar. Damn it can be like 10 minutes between plays

The absolute worst is the commercial, kickoff, commercial sequence. Even worse when you are at the game.

Indeed, esp since they moved the kickoffs up to the 35 and most are now touchbacks.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

BigRedLedbetter wrote:I hate extra points. I think teams should always have to go for 2.

You must have loved the Lions/Eagles game from last season, then.

I think I'd be down with teams automatically getting 7 points on a TD but then they could "gamble" a point if they want that's essentially the same as going for two.

Yeah I would be down with that.

Though i have to admit that the time between the TD, TD review, XP, commercial, kickoff/touchback, commercial is a fine time to hit the bathroom and grab a beer at the bar. Damn it can be like 10 minutes between plays

The absolute worst is the commercial, kickoff, commercial sequence. Even worse when you are at the game.

Agreed. I use to go to probably 5-10 football games a season (between college and pro) but anymore I maybe hit 1-2. I'm much more of a baseball/hockey fan though.

What are people's thoughts on the NBA draft lottery? It looks like they could double down on it.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-l ... is-coming/

I've long been averse to the concept of luck boiling down to who gets a superstar. But is tanking a serious enough problem in the NBA that the lottery meets the Churchill principle of "the worst form possible, except for all the others"? Baseball doesn't seem to have a problem with buyers and sellers, and they have a lot more games to fill seats with. Is it a legit problem in the NBA because one superstar can change the face of a franchise?

Green Habit wrote:What are people's thoughts on the NBA draft lottery? It looks like they could double down on it.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-l ... is-coming/

I've long been averse to the concept of luck boiling down to who gets a superstar. But is tanking a serious enough problem in the NBA that the lottery meets the Churchill principle of "the worst form possible, except for all the others"? Baseball doesn't seem to have a problem with buyers and sellers, and they have a lot more games to fill seats with. Is it a legit problem in the NBA because one superstar can change the face of a franchise?

Lol @ lottery. Like there's really chance involved

Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

Can you be more specific?

You have to have some reviewable and some not.

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

I don't think its arbitrary at all. In fact, the process usually is very specific, intentional, subject to scrutiny/adjustments and calculated. It would be far worse if each league opened up instant replay for every single play, for any given reason.

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

I don't think its arbitrary at all. In fact, the process usually is very specific, intentional, subject to scrutiny/adjustments and calculated. It would be far worse if each league opened up instant replay for every single play, for any given reason.

OK two examples:
- This just happened yesterday... Replay of whether or not a batter actually made contact with a pitch (thus keeping the at bat alive on a foul ball, or calling him out on strikes). Somebody correct me if I understood that wrong.
- Replay of a foul or penalty call... Rewind the tape and it's easy to see if a guy flops in basketball, or if a jersey was held in football, etc. and the ref missed the call on the field. So many of these calls are made that are so ridiculously off from what actually happened.

I realize you can't replay everything. Games would take 8 hours. But I maintain that what gets reviewed, and what doesn't, can drive you crazy as a fan because you're like "WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY REVIEW THAT!!!!???" when an obvious bad call goes against you. So these rules are therefore stupid

Bammer wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

I don't think its arbitrary at all. In fact, the process usually is very specific, intentional, subject to scrutiny/adjustments and calculated. It would be far worse if each league opened up instant replay for every single play, for any given reason.

OK two examples:
- This just happened yesterday... Replay of whether or not a batter actually made contact with a pitch (thus keeping the at bat alive on a foul ball, or calling him out on strikes). Somebody correct me if I understood that wrong.
- Replay of a foul or penalty call... Rewind the tape and it's easy to see if a guy flops in basketball, or if a jersey was held in football, etc. and the ref missed the call on the field. So many of these calls are made that are so ridiculously off from what actually happened.

I realize you can't replay everything. Games would take 8 hours. But I maintain that what gets reviewed, and what doesn't, can drive you crazy as a fan because you're like "WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY REVIEW THAT!!!!???" when an obvious bad call goes against you. So these rules are therefore stupid

Lol if you reviewed every play for a held jersey in football, every play you'd call holding.

Bammer wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

I don't think its arbitrary at all. In fact, the process usually is very specific, intentional, subject to scrutiny/adjustments and calculated. It would be far worse if each league opened up instant replay for every single play, for any given reason.

OK two examples:
- This just happened yesterday... Replay of whether or not a batter actually made contact with a pitch (thus keeping the at bat alive on a foul ball, or calling him out on strikes). Somebody correct me if I understood that wrong.
- Replay of a foul or penalty call... Rewind the tape and it's easy to see if a guy flops in basketball, or if a jersey was held in football, etc. and the ref missed the call on the field. So many of these calls are made that are so ridiculously off from what actually happened.

I realize you can't replay everything. Games would take 8 hours. But I maintain that what gets reviewed, and what doesn't, can drive you crazy as a fan because you're like "WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY REVIEW THAT!!!!???" when an obvious bad call goes against you. So these rules are therefore stupid

9

9/10 times it is obvious if contact was made. For the last 1/10, I doubt video evidence would be very conclusive to make a judgement if if was so slight the ump could hear/see the contact.

It would cause way more problems if penalties could be reviewed. Example, Ref calls a penalty for holding on number 86. The coaches contest because the video shows 86 didn't hold. Turns out the ref messed up and meant to say 76. If you allow the ref to uphold the call because video showed 76 held instead of 86, you are allowing them the ability to find other infractions happening on the field and enforce them. Considering penalties happen on every play, with only certain ones being called, that is one hell of a can of worms to open.

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

I don't think its arbitrary at all. In fact, the process usually is very specific, intentional, subject to scrutiny/adjustments and calculated. It would be far worse if each league opened up instant replay for every single play, for any given reason.

OK two examples:
- This just happened yesterday... Replay of whether or not a batter actually made contact with a pitch (thus keeping the at bat alive on a foul ball, or calling him out on strikes). Somebody correct me if I understood that wrong.
- Replay of a foul or penalty call... Rewind the tape and it's easy to see if a guy flops in basketball, or if a jersey was held in football, etc. and the ref missed the call on the field. So many of these calls are made that are so ridiculously off from what actually happened.

I realize you can't replay everything. Games would take 8 hours. But I maintain that what gets reviewed, and what doesn't, can drive you crazy as a fan because you're like "WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY REVIEW THAT!!!!???" when an obvious bad call goes against you. So these rules are therefore stupid

9

9/10 times it is obvious if contact was made. For the last 1/10, I doubt video evidence would be very conclusive to make a judgement if if was so slight the ump could hear/see the contact.

It would cause way more problems if penalties could be reviewed. Example, Ref calls a penalty for holding on number 86. The coaches contest because the video shows 86 didn't hold. Turns out the ref messed up and meant to say 76. If you allow the ref to uphold the call because video showed 76 held instead of 86, you are allowing them the ability to find other infractions happening on the field and enforce them. Considering penalties happen on every play, with only certain ones being called, that is one hell of a can of worms to open.

Everything you say is true. But when you are a fan watching a game and they show a replay of a call that went against your team which was clearly wrong it drives you fucking crazy and at the time it becomes a stupid rule. So there.

Bammer wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Bammer wrote:Throughout multiple sports...the arbitrary nature of some calls being reviewable and some not.

I don't think its arbitrary at all. In fact, the process usually is very specific, intentional, subject to scrutiny/adjustments and calculated. It would be far worse if each league opened up instant replay for every single play, for any given reason.

OK two examples:
- This just happened yesterday... Replay of whether or not a batter actually made contact with a pitch (thus keeping the at bat alive on a foul ball, or calling him out on strikes). Somebody correct me if I understood that wrong.
- Replay of a foul or penalty call... Rewind the tape and it's easy to see if a guy flops in basketball, or if a jersey was held in football, etc. and the ref missed the call on the field. So many of these calls are made that are so ridiculously off from what actually happened.

I realize you can't replay everything. Games would take 8 hours. But I maintain that what gets reviewed, and what doesn't, can drive you crazy as a fan because you're like "WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY REVIEW THAT!!!!???" when an obvious bad call goes against you. So these rules are therefore stupid

9

9/10 times it is obvious if contact was made. For the last 1/10, I doubt video evidence would be very conclusive to make a judgement if if was so slight the ump could hear/see the contact.

It would cause way more problems if penalties could be reviewed. Example, Ref calls a penalty for holding on number 86. The coaches contest because the video shows 86 didn't hold. Turns out the ref messed up and meant to say 76. If you allow the ref to uphold the call because video showed 76 held instead of 86, you are allowing them the ability to find other infractions happening on the field and enforce them. Considering penalties happen on every play, with only certain ones being called, that is one hell of a can of worms to open.

Everything you say is true. But when you are a fan watching a game and they show a replay of a call that went against your team which was clearly wrong it drives you fucking crazy and at the time it becomes a stupid rule. So there.

One of the most obvious examples of a play that is not reviewable but should be under certain circumstances is Navorro Bowman's fumble recovery in the NFC Championship game this year.

Bammer wrote:- This just happened yesterday... Replay of whether or not a batter actually made contact with a pitch (thus keeping the at bat alive on a foul ball, or calling him out on strikes). Somebody correct me if I understood that wrong.

This happened the other day in the Blue Jays-White Sox game. The batter for the Sox struck out on a foul tip that was caught by the catcher and the White Sox came out to challenge by arguing that he hadn't made contact with the pitch. I was confused about how that mattered for a second, but then I realized he had held up on the swing and it probably wouldn't have been a called strike. It wasn't overturned... it was just a weird play overall.

Monkey_Driven wrote:One of the most obvious examples of a play that is not reviewable but should be under certain circumstances is Navorro Bowman's fumble recovery in the NFC Championship game this year.

That call probably should have gone the other way to be honest.