Neutral Zone Infraction (1 Viewer)

[dparker713]

Its YOUR judgment that the RG intentionally came out of his stance to point at Seymore, without seeing hte replay, its just as possible that the RG moved, realized he'd moved immediately, and then pointed down the line to Seymore after realizing the play hadnt started.

I went ahead and italicized what you wrote thats relies on your judgments, it doesn't leave much left over. The rule is vague and leaves alot of leeway to the official. Think maybe, just maybe, your bias towards the Pats blinds you from even considering any alternative explanations? Or are you going to keep claiming you are 100% certain of exactly what each player was thinking when they moved?

Not like the pats wouldn't have found a way to choke without the ref calling this penalty.

Thickheaded much? I think it is beyond dispute that the OLineman stood up as Seymour was retreating and pointed at him. He didnt flinch at all. It doesnt matter what Seymours intent was, he didnt INDUCE the OLineman into a false start. The OLineman false started on his own and should have been penalized.I dont know what the hell some of you are/were looking at.

I am not disagreeing with the referees judgement. I am saying the referee did not do his job properly. He did not administer the rule properly. If his judgement was that Seymour drew the RG into a false start then he must have been drinking before the game.

He administered the rule as if any movement by the offense while the defense is in the neutral zone is a penalty against the defense and that is just not true. It is not as simple as a who moved first situation which is how he called it.

Comprehend much? Coming out of his stance specifically to point at Seymore, or coming out of his stance and reflexively pointing to Seymore is entirely relevant. The rule is a DL jumping to induce, the OL's response to his jump is evidence of intent. Seymore was close enough to the RG under the rule. While the response took longer then YOU deem acceptable, YOUR JUDGMENT is entirely irrelevant. The only judgment that matters is the officials. He deemed the reaction within 1 second to be immediate. His timeframe is longer then yours which is probably shorter then a picosecond where the Pats are concerned.

If you cant understand that hte bolded part is your interpretation of events, there really is little point to continuing.

RIF

 

[Pat Patriot]

Its YOUR judgment that the RG intentionally came out of his stance to point at Seymore, without seeing hte replay, its just as possible that the RG moved, realized he'd moved immediately, and then pointed down the line to Seymore after realizing the play hadnt started.

I went ahead and italicized what you wrote thats relies on your judgments, it doesn't leave much left over. The rule is vague and leaves alot of leeway to the official. Think maybe, just maybe, your bias towards the Pats blinds you from even considering any alternative explanations? Or are you going to keep claiming you are 100% certain of exactly what each player was thinking when they moved?

Not like the pats wouldn't have found a way to choke without the ref calling this penalty.

Thickheaded much? I think it is beyond dispute that the OLineman stood up as Seymour was retreating and pointed at him. He didnt flinch at all. It doesnt matter what Seymours intent was, he didnt INDUCE the OLineman into a false start. The OLineman false started on his own and should have been penalized.I dont know what the hell some of you are/were looking at.

I am not disagreeing with the referees judgement. I am saying the referee did not do his job properly. He did not administer the rule properly. If his judgement was that Seymour drew the RG into a false start then he must have been drinking before the game.

He administered the rule as if any movement by the offense while the defense is in the neutral zone is a penalty against the defense and that is just not true. It is not as simple as a who moved first situation which is how he called it.

Comprehend much? Coming out of his stance specifically to point at Seymore, or coming out of his stance and reflexively pointing to Seymore is entirely relevant. The rule is a DL jumping to induce, the OL's response to his jump is evidence of intent. Seymore was close enough to the RG under the rule. While the response took longer then YOU deem acceptable, YOUR JUDGMENT is entirely irrelevant. The only judgment that matters is the officials. He deemed the reaction within 1 second to be immediate. His timeframe is longer then yours which is probably shorter then a picosecond where the Pats are concerned.

If you cant understand that hte bolded part is your interpretation of events, there really is little point to continuing.

RIF

There really is no point in continuing. You are an IDIOT.

 

[dparker713]

Its YOUR judgment that the RG intentionally came out of his stance to point at Seymore, without seeing hte replay, its just as possible that the RG moved, realized he'd moved immediately, and then pointed down the line to Seymore after realizing the play hadnt started.

I went ahead and italicized what you wrote thats relies on your judgments, it doesn't leave much left over. The rule is vague and leaves alot of leeway to the official. Think maybe, just maybe, your bias towards the Pats blinds you from even considering any alternative explanations? Or are you going to keep claiming you are 100% certain of exactly what each player was thinking when they moved?

Not like the pats wouldn't have found a way to choke without the ref calling this penalty.

Thickheaded much? I think it is beyond dispute that the OLineman stood up as Seymour was retreating and pointed at him. He didnt flinch at all. It doesnt matter what Seymours intent was, he didnt INDUCE the OLineman into a false start. The OLineman false started on his own and should have been penalized.I dont know what the hell some of you are/were looking at.

I am not disagreeing with the referees judgement. I am saying the referee did not do his job properly. He did not administer the rule properly. If his judgement was that Seymour drew the RG into a false start then he must have been drinking before the game.

He administered the rule as if any movement by the offense while the defense is in the neutral zone is a penalty against the defense and that is just not true. It is not as simple as a who moved first situation which is how he called it.

Comprehend much? Coming out of his stance specifically to point at Seymore, or coming out of his stance and reflexively pointing to Seymore is entirely relevant. The rule is a DL jumping to induce, the OL's response to his jump is evidence of intent. Seymore was close enough to the RG under the rule. While the response took longer then YOU deem acceptable, YOUR JUDGMENT is entirely irrelevant. The only judgment that matters is the officials. He deemed the reaction within 1 second to be immediate. His timeframe is longer then yours which is probably shorter then a picosecond where the Pats are concerned.

If you cant understand that hte bolded part is your interpretation of events, there really is little point to continuing.

RIF

There really is not point in continuing. You are an IDIOT.

Very persuasive.As you've given up, I WIN!!!!!