New England at NY Jets (1 Viewer)

[MoveToSkypager]

NFL rule edited after the fact?

Did you read the article?

Yes. It sounds like the rule was applied correctly as intended. That said, why edit out the part about the "line of scrimmage", which is what Belichick was saying?

You should read the article again.

 

[Witz]

NFL rule edited after the fact?

Did you read the article?

Yes. It sounds like the rule was applied correctly as intended. That said, why edit out the part about the "line of scrimmage", which is what Belichick was saying?

Someone in charge of the website probably realized it reflected the information prior to the amendment before the rule was passed (since this seems to be a trending topic). The rules themselves correctly state the rule and I'd have to assume BB is getting his information from the actual rule book as opposed to the web.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

it is what it is.

the funny thing about all this is if that call had gone the other way jets fans would be crying about it for the next 10 years.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

NFL rule edited after the fact?

Did you read the article?

Yes. It sounds like the rule was applied correctly as intended. That said, why edit out the part about the "line of scrimmage", which is what Belichick was saying?

Someone in charge of the website probably realized it reflected the information prior to the amendment before the rule was passed (since this seems to be a trending topic). The rules themselves correctly state the rule and I'd have to assume BB is getting his information from the actual rule book as opposed to the web.

I guess the remaining question is, was the rule book ever written the same way as what as published in the news story? If so, when did it change? And if not, where did they get the wording that was on the website?

As the story says, changing the wording of the rule in the online story after the fact, without making any reference to it, just looks bad. Doesn't mean it was wrong.

 

[rick6668]

Rodney Harrison, "Brady threw a pick 6, he hasn't played well this year"

 

[wilked]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

 

[Nucker101]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

What a ####### #######.

 

[msudaisy26]

A rule is a rule and you have to call it. I think the thing we can all agree on is that these rules are getting ridiculous. The football we all love will be gone within a decade.

 

[msudaisy26]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

What a ####### #######.

I wouldn't say just Jets fans. We have seen nasty fans of all teams.

 

[Nucker101]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

What a ####### #######.

I wouldn't say just Jets fans. We have seen nasty fans of all teams.

Agreed, but I was just talking about that ####### specifically. I hope someone knocked him out.

 

[Ballstein]

And offensive players push A ball carrier blatantly. It's illegal and never gets called. One day it will and a sheatstorm will ensue.

 

[mad sweeney]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

Shouldn't go swinging at someone if you don't want to get hit.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

It looked like she wanted to throw hands. Maybe next time she won't.

 

[baymen]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

Shouldn't you be on twitter mocking Torrey Smith's brother's death? Let's lump all the fans together for their transgressions I guess.

 

[GregR]

And offensive players push A ball carrier blatantly. It's illegal and never gets called. One day it will and a sheatstorm will ensue.

It was called in a Super Bowl actually.

Edit: Correction, was a regular season game of an eventual SB champion.

 

[Witz]

NFL rule edited after the fact?

Did you read the article?

Yes. It sounds like the rule was applied correctly as intended. That said, why edit out the part about the "line of scrimmage", which is what Belichick was saying?

Someone in charge of the website probably realized it reflected the information prior to the amendment before the rule was passed (since this seems to be a trending topic). The rules themselves correctly state the rule and I'd have to assume BB is getting his information from the actual rule book as opposed to the web.

I guess the remaining question is, was the rule book ever written the same way as what as published in the news story? If so, when did it change? And if not, where did they get the wording that was on the website?

As the story says, changing the wording of the rule in the online story after the fact, without making any reference to it, just looks bad. Doesn't mean it was wrong.

That would be a negative. The rule proposal initially referenced only those on the line of scrimmage but was amended prior to the vote to reflect the entire defensive team (Team B).

 

[bleachercreacher]

And offensive players push A ball carrier blatantly. It's illegal and never gets called. One day it will and a sheatstorm will ensue.

It was called in a Super Bowl actually.

Which one? Just curious. I've wondered since they didn't call it against USC vs. Notre Dame like 10 years ago if it's ever been called.

Also, I remember seeing a thing on the Ice Bowl. On the TD that Green Bay scored to win the game, the RB threw his hands up as he was running towards the pile. He said everyone thought he was signaling TD, but he was actually trying to throw his hands up so he didn't get a penalty for pushing the QB (I believe) into the end zone.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Jets fans being Jets fans

http://deadspin.com/male-jets-fan-decks-female-fan-in-metlife-stadium-fight-1448796519

Shouldn't go swinging at someone if you don't want to get hit.

She took the punch like a champ. He should not only be embarrassed for punching a female but at that I don't even think he knocked her down. What a chump.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I also love seeing Pats fans saying that you can't call the rule as it's written because of the magnitude of the situation. It's pretty much identical to their reaction to the Tuck Rule.

Here's the difference: The tuck rule had been called several times in the 2001 season prior to that playoff game, including one time that cost the Patriots a fumble recovery (against the Jets).

This rule has NEVER been called before this afternoon, according to Mike Periera.

It's funny the revisionist history being bandied about. I've heard several Pat's fans make this claim, but every time I've asked for an example, no one has been able to come up with anything. If you have anything you can link us to, please feel free to provide.

It's not revisionist history just because you don't know the history. The tuck rule went against the patriots in week 2 of the season.

You are welcome for the link

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/20/nfl-rescinds-tuck-rule/HvKSMTSMVWYDfGVMljdVxN/story.html

Seriously?

New England's coach (who is completely objective in this matter) claims it happened to him in week 2 of that year and that's your proof? I would love to see a youtube of this. I imagine because of the contraversy, that there must be a lot of youtubes showing how it was called against New England earlier in the year. You would think that the NFL would have highlighted all of these calls and showed them to the public just to prove that the correct call was made...

The reason why you can't find any of these calls from the NFL archives is because it never happened before this call was made. The NFL would have loved nothing better than to show an example of this happening earlier in the year, but the fact was that they didn't have anything even close to Brady's tuck fumble.

 

[GregR]

And offensive players push A ball carrier blatantly. It's illegal and never gets called. One day it will and a sheatstorm will ensue.

It was called in a Super Bowl actually.

Which one? Just curious. I've wondered since they didn't call it against USC vs. Notre Dame like 10 years ago if it's ever been called.

Also, I remember seeing a thing on the Ice Bowl. On the TD that Green Bay scored to win the game, the RB threw his hands up as he was running towards the pile. He said everyone thought he was signaling TD, but he was actually trying to throw his hands up so he didn't get a penalty for pushing the QB (I believe) into the end zone.

After googling, my memory of what happened on the play was right, but I got the game confused, wasn't during the Super Bowl.

Ditka's '85 Bears were playing the Cowboys in the regular season. Walter Payton got stuffed at the goal line and was about to go down, when William "Refrigerator" Perry grabbed Payton and carried him into the end zone, which drew the penalty flag.

There was controversy in the Super Bowl that year then because Ditka gave Perry and McMahon short yardage TDs, and Payton never scored in the SB. I was thinking it was part of that controversy but guess it was an earlier game.

Edit to add: I liked how Charlie Weis responded to a question about the Bush Push and its (il)legality. His answer was something along the lines of, "well, I hope in the same my situation my quarterback would do the same thing."

 

[Sarnoff]

I also love seeing Pats fans saying that you can't call the rule as it's written because of the magnitude of the situation. It's pretty much identical to their reaction to the Tuck Rule.

Who the hell is saying that?

About 50 consecutive posts on Sons Of Sam Horn say it's BS to make that call in OT.

My absolute favorite place to lurk every time that Patriots and Sawks implode.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I also love seeing Pats fans saying that you can't call the rule as it's written because of the magnitude of the situation. It's pretty much identical to their reaction to the Tuck Rule.

Here's the difference: The tuck rule had been called several times in the 2001 season prior to that playoff game, including one time that cost the Patriots a fumble recovery (against the Jets).This rule has NEVER been called before this afternoon, according to Mike Periera.

It's funny the revisionist history being bandied about. I've heard several Pat's fans make this claim, but every time I've asked for an example, no one has been able to come up with anything. If you have anything you can link us to, please feel free to provide.

It's not revisionist history just because you don't know the history. The tuck rule went against the patriots in week 2 of the season.You are welcome for the linkhttp://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/20/nfl-rescinds-tuck-rule/HvKSMTSMVWYDfGVMljdVxN/story.html

Seriously?New England's coach (who is completely objective in this matter) claims it happened to him in week 2 of that year and that's your proof? I would love to see a youtube of this. I imagine because of the contraversy, that there must be a lot of youtubes showing how it was called against New England earlier in the year. You would think that the NFL would have highlighted all of these calls and showed them to the public just to prove that the correct call was made...

The reason why you can't find any of these calls from the NFL archives is because it never happened before this call was made. The NFL would have loved nothing better than to show an example of this happening earlier in the year, but the fact was that they didn't have anything even close to Brady's tuck fumble.

You asked for a link and I gave you from the boston globe. I didn't know I needed to give to prove that it happened.Here is one from ESPN

static.espn.go.com/nfl/news/2002/0120/1314728.html

a Darrell Fry wrote on March 18, 2002 in a Tampa Paper an article as well. I cannot post a working link, but if you google search " vinyl testaverde tuck rule" and go to the 4th link down, you will find it.

Here is the text

"

Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

Focus of league meetings settling on the 'tuck rule'

Controversial play in AFC playoff game brings about a review of the guidelines for a fumble by a passer.

By DARRELL FRY, Times Staff Writer

© St. Petersburg Times, published March 18, 2002

Controversial play in AFC playoff game brings about a review of the guidelines for a fumble by a passer.

ORLANDO -- Where do you draw the line?

Is a quarterback no longer attempting to pass when he starts to pull the ball down? Or is it when he has tucked the ball away with two hands?

That has become the pressing question of the week at an NFL owners meeting that has comparatively few weighty issues to debate.

The question relates to the league's "tuck" rule that became the center of debate after an AFC playoff game between the Raiders and Patriots. In response, league officials have been reviewing the rule in hopes of making a modification that will put the controversy to rest.

Bucs coach Jon Gruden, whose Raiders were hurt by the rule in that playoff game, said the issue is simple.

"I don't think you need to have an owners meeting to figure out the tuck rule," he said. "Put it like this, if the quarterback, the running back, the tight end or any eligible receiver has two hands on the ball, it can in no way be interpreted as an incomplete pass. Ever.

"If the arm is going forward and the ball is put together with two hands, he is now making an attempt to do something else. He is not a forward passer."

The league begged to differ.

The Patriots were behind 13-10 with less than two minutes left when quarterback Tom Brady, looking to pass, apparently changed his mind and tried to tuck the ball down. As he did, he was hit by Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson and lost the ball. The Raiders picked it up, which seemed to clinch the game for Oakland.

The play, however, was reviewed and ruled an incomplete pass. Referees applied the rule that says "any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

The Patriots retained possession and forced overtime, then won on a 23-yard field goal at 8:29 of the extra period.

At the time Patriots coach Bill Belichick agreed with the application of the rule, saying, "To me, there's no question, based on that wording, how it should be ruled."

The rule also came into play in the Bucs-Rams game last season when St. Louis quarterback Kurt Warner appeared to fumble while back to pass, but the play was ruled an incomplete pass. The same thing happened to Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde in an early-season game against the Patriots.

But neither instance played as big a role in the outcome as in the Pats-Raiders game.

In such a situation, the officials aren't told to judge the quarterback's intent to pass, but rather whether the ball was tucked away or not."

I am not sure why you simply can't admit you are wrong and move on.

 

[Sarnoff]

New England's done it before, and the Jets tipped off the refs to be on the lookout for them doing it again.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I also love seeing Pats fans saying that you can't call the rule as it's written because of the magnitude of the situation. It's pretty much identical to their reaction to the Tuck Rule.

Here's the difference: The tuck rule had been called several times in the 2001 season prior to that playoff game, including one time that cost the Patriots a fumble recovery (against the Jets).This rule has NEVER been called before this afternoon, according to Mike Periera.

It's funny the revisionist history being bandied about. I've heard several Pat's fans make this claim, but every time I've asked for an example, no one has been able to come up with anything. If you have anything you can link us to, please feel free to provide.

It's not revisionist history just because you don't know the history. The tuck rule went against the patriots in week 2 of the season.You are welcome for the linkhttp://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/03/20/nfl-rescinds-tuck-rule/HvKSMTSMVWYDfGVMljdVxN/story.html

Seriously?New England's coach (who is completely objective in this matter) claims it happened to him in week 2 of that year and that's your proof? I would love to see a youtube of this. I imagine because of the contraversy, that there must be a lot of youtubes showing how it was called against New England earlier in the year. You would think that the NFL would have highlighted all of these calls and showed them to the public just to prove that the correct call was made...

The reason why you can't find any of these calls from the NFL archives is because it never happened before this call was made. The NFL would have loved nothing better than to show an example of this happening earlier in the year, but the fact was that they didn't have anything even close to Brady's tuck fumble.

You asked for a link and I gave you from the boston globe. I didn't know I needed to give to prove that it happened.Here is one from ESPN

static.espn.go.com/nfl/news/2002/0120/1314728.html

a Darrell Fry wrote on March 18, 2002 in a Tampa Paper an article as well. I cannot post a working link, but if you google search " vinyl testaverde tuck rule" and go to the 4th link down, you will find it.

Here is the text

"

Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

Focus of league meetings settling on the 'tuck rule'

Controversial play in AFC playoff game brings about a review of the guidelines for a fumble by a passer.

By DARRELL FRY, Times Staff Writer

© St. Petersburg Times, published March 18, 2002

Controversial play in AFC playoff game brings about a review of the guidelines for a fumble by a passer.

ORLANDO -- Where do you draw the line?

Is a quarterback no longer attempting to pass when he starts to pull the ball down? Or is it when he has tucked the ball away with two hands?

That has become the pressing question of the week at an NFL owners meeting that has comparatively few weighty issues to debate.

The question relates to the league's "tuck" rule that became the center of debate after an AFC playoff game between the Raiders and Patriots. In response, league officials have been reviewing the rule in hopes of making a modification that will put the controversy to rest.

Bucs coach Jon Gruden, whose Raiders were hurt by the rule in that playoff game, said the issue is simple.

"I don't think you need to have an owners meeting to figure out the tuck rule," he said. "Put it like this, if the quarterback, the running back, the tight end or any eligible receiver has two hands on the ball, it can in no way be interpreted as an incomplete pass. Ever.

"If the arm is going forward and the ball is put together with two hands, he is now making an attempt to do something else. He is not a forward passer."

The league begged to differ.

The Patriots were behind 13-10 with less than two minutes left when quarterback Tom Brady, looking to pass, apparently changed his mind and tried to tuck the ball down. As he did, he was hit by Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson and lost the ball. The Raiders picked it up, which seemed to clinch the game for Oakland.

The play, however, was reviewed and ruled an incomplete pass. Referees applied the rule that says "any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

The Patriots retained possession and forced overtime, then won on a 23-yard field goal at 8:29 of the extra period.

At the time Patriots coach Bill Belichick agreed with the application of the rule, saying, "To me, there's no question, based on that wording, how it should be ruled."

The rule also came into play in the Bucs-Rams game last season when St. Louis quarterback Kurt Warner appeared to fumble while back to pass, but the play was ruled an incomplete pass. The same thing happened to Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde in an early-season game against the Patriots.

But neither instance played as big a role in the outcome as in the Pats-Raiders game.

In such a situation, the officials aren't told to judge the quarterback's intent to pass, but rather whether the ball was tucked away or not."

I am not sure why you simply can't admit you are wrong and move on.

Please watch the link below. This is Belichek's version of the tuck rule that happened to them (around 1:40). After watching this I hope you can admit your wrong and we can move on. This is not even close to what Brady did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHEQtASq9BI

 

[MoveToSkypager]

New England's done it before, and the Jets tipped off the refs to be on the lookout for them doing it again.

Wow. That's just outcoaching a guy.

 

[lbouchard]

New England's done it before, and the Jets tipped off the refs to be on the lookout for them doing it again.

http://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/super-page/well-would-you-look-at-this-the-jets-doing-the-same-exact-thing-as-the-pats-on-our-game-tying-field-goal-with-no-penalty/

Jets doing the same thing earlier in the game..

 

[GregR]

New England's done it before, and the Jets tipped off the refs to be on the lookout for them doing it again.

http://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/super-page/well-would-you-look-at-this-the-jets-doing-the-same-exact-thing-as-the-pats-on-our-game-tying-field-goal-with-no-penalty/

Jets doing the same thing earlier in the game..

I just watched it on a big screen TV frame by frame. I see no pushing on the play.

The highlighted player isn't even on the second level as the link claims (not that it would matter if he was). He was lined up on the line between the guard and tackle.

 

[GregR]

While I had the game queued up, I checked Willie Colon's statement that he heard a ref saying he had warned the Patriots for the maneuver earlier in the game.

I didn't see anything on the FG attempts, but it looked like Jones did the same thing on an extra point, so that would at least jibe with Colon's statement.

 

[fatness]

The New Jersey State Police have charged four people in connection with the physical altercation that took place at the conclusion of the Jets-Patriots game at MetLife Stadium on Sunday.

Amanda MacDowell, 25, of Marlborough, MA, Jaclyn Nugent, 26, of Boston, and David James Sacco, 28, of Boston were involved in a verbal and physical altercation with Kurt Paschke, 38, of Holbrook, NY, on the stadium's 100 concourse level at about 4:30 p.m.

After a thorough review of the evidence, the State Police said in a statement, "The investigation revealed that Amanda MacDowell and Jaclyn Nugent were observed kicking and punching Paschke in the body and head. Shortly thereafter, Paschke was observed striking Nugent with a punch to the face. David James Sacco then was observed striking Paschke in the face."

The State Police said all four have been charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct and all will face court appearances at East Rutherford Municipal Court.

link

 

[MoveToSkypager]

The New Jersey State Police have charged four people in connection with the physical altercation that took place at the conclusion of the Jets-Patriots game at MetLife Stadium on Sunday.

Amanda MacDowell, 25, of Marlborough, MA, Jaclyn Nugent, 26, of Boston, and David James Sacco, 28, of Boston were involved in a verbal and physical altercation with Kurt Paschke, 38, of Holbrook, NY, on the stadium's 100 concourse level at about 4:30 p.m.

After a thorough review of the evidence, the State Police said in a statement, "The investigation revealed that Amanda MacDowell and Jaclyn Nugent were observed kicking and punching Paschke in the body and head. Shortly thereafter, Paschke was observed striking Nugent with a punch to the face. David James Sacco then was observed striking Paschke in the face."

The State Police said all four have been charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct and all will face court appearances at East Rutherford Municipal Court.

link

I hope Sacco wasn't charged. A pack of stupid people attack someone, there is no reason for that person to be charged with defending himself. I bet Paschke won't be acting like she can wade into a fight again.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The New Jersey State Police have charged four people in connection with the physical altercation that took place at the conclusion of the Jets-Patriots game at MetLife Stadium on Sunday.

Amanda MacDowell, 25, of Marlborough, MA, Jaclyn Nugent, 26, of Boston, and David James Sacco, 28, of Boston were involved in a verbal and physical altercation with Kurt Paschke, 38, of Holbrook, NY, on the stadium's 100 concourse level at about 4:30 p.m.

After a thorough review of the evidence, the State Police said in a statement, "The investigation revealed that Amanda MacDowell and Jaclyn Nugent were observed kicking and punching Paschke in the body and head. Shortly thereafter, Paschke was observed striking Nugent with a punch to the face. David James Sacco then was observed striking Paschke in the face."

The State Police said all four have been charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct and all will face court appearances at East Rutherford Municipal Court.

link

Patschke is well known to anybody who tailgates at MetLife. He has a small Jets theme motor home.

He's a convicted killer; stabbed another teenager in his younger days.

Couple articles on the goon and the incident:

http://gothamist.com/2013/10/22/three_pats_fans_charges_as_well_as.php

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/photo-rex-ryan-poses-jets-fan-punched-female-pats-fan-article-1.1492820