Rah Rah! Seahawks! (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

 

[ImTheScientist]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

 

[jojoh07]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

your homerism sickens me

 

[gradin123]

One thing I know for sure is that the Seahawks Defense has sure turned around under Pete Carroll. The offense is still a work in progress but the Seahawks defense was pretty bad for years before Carroll came to town and now it is really good. It seems like he has a really good defensive mind and can evaluate defensive talent really well.

 

[drummer]

Carroll is doing a great job with that defense already. Steve Young - who played when Carroll was DC under George Seifert - was praising that pass rush from the front line after the game. If this defense starts being the turnover machine SF was last season, then they could very well be the best defense in the NFC.

 

[drummer]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

49er fans, who once cringed at the thought of Carroll as HC, now love HarBRAH for his enthusiasmz. Enthusiamz..enthusiamz............... /FatDeNiro

Then again, the 49ers signed Singletary for Rah Rah, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Short Corner]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

I am a fan of the enthusiasm. Not a fan of his after the "What's your deal" incident, given USC's propensity to run it up under him.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

he is willing to compromise integrity.So he comes across as a phony.

 

[biju]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

he is willing to compromise integrity.So he comes across as a phony.

Ok, I'll bite. Where did he compromise integrity?

 

[DepthCharts]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

He coached USC.Signed

Husky first, Seahawk second

 

[proninja]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

He coached USC.Signed

Husky first, Seahawk second

Feel the same way about his OC?

 

[ImTheScientist]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

He coached USC.Signed

Husky first, Seahawk second

Feel the same way about his OC?

 

[jurrassic]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Ya....you should not be excited about a win.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.Lucky the packs only TD drive was extended by the refs or the game would have ended 7-6

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

 

[biju]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

Everyone keeps saying GB clearly should have won. But the people saying this don't say a damn thing about the rest of the calls during the game except for that one. They cite that somehow that call is way more important because it decided the game, but if the score is 7-6 that play doesn't decide the game at all.You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, but the entire game wasn't clean. I wish someone would post a GIF of all the holds that weren't called in the second half. There's a reason Green Bay suddenly didn't get sacked in the second half.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

 

[habsfan]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

And what exactly should the Seahawks do to make this right in your mind? Donate the win to charity?Directing scorn at the team is completely irrational.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

That's fine, you can have your win. The Hawks just didn't earn it, that's all. It was handed to them.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

Everyone keeps saying GB clearly should have won. But the people saying this don't say a damn thing about the rest of the calls during the game except for that one. They cite that somehow that call is way more important because it decided the game, but if the score is 7-6 that play doesn't decide the game at all.You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, but the entire game wasn't clean. I wish someone would post a GIF of all the holds that weren't called in the second half. There's a reason Green Bay suddenly didn't get sacked in the second half.

Hmmm....phantom holding calls just like the phantom touchdown reception by Tate in the end zone? Sorry, but your reasoning for why there were no sacks in the 2nd half is nonsense.

 

[biju]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

That's fine, you can have your win. The Hawks just didn't earn it, that's all. It was handed to them.

Incorrect. But if you need to keep spouting it, do it. We'll agree to disagree and I'll be here to say it every time.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

And what exactly should the Seahawks do to make this right in your mind? Donate the win to charity?Directing scorn at the team is completely irrational.

Yes...they can give it to the children just like it was given to them!

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

That's fine, you can have your win. The Hawks just didn't earn it, that's all. It was handed to them.

Incorrect. But if you need to keep spouting it, do it. We'll agree to disagree and I'll be here to say it every time.

That's fine too. However, 99.9% of football fans and anyone involved in the game agree with me.

 

[biju]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

Everyone keeps saying GB clearly should have won. But the people saying this don't say a damn thing about the rest of the calls during the game except for that one. They cite that somehow that call is way more important because it decided the game, but if the score is 7-6 that play doesn't decide the game at all.You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, but the entire game wasn't clean. I wish someone would post a GIF of all the holds that weren't called in the second half. There's a reason Green Bay suddenly didn't get sacked in the second half.

Hmmm....phantom holding calls just like the phantom touchdown reception by Tate in the end zone? Sorry, but your reasoning for why there were no sacks in the 2nd half is nonsense.

Did you actually watch the game? I did, and I've re-watched it. You have no idea what you're talking about. And tell me why it was a phantom touchdown. I'll start by saying that Tate clearly had a PI not called on him, but it's already been said multiple times that those aren't really called since everyone is jostling for position. So let's hear your version of it, because there's enough disputable evidence to make it at worst iffy, and at best flat out wrong.

 

[biju]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

That's fine, you can have your win. The Hawks just didn't earn it, that's all. It was handed to them.

Incorrect. But if you need to keep spouting it, do it. We'll agree to disagree and I'll be here to say it every time.

That's fine too. However, 99.9% of football fans and anyone involved in the game agree with me.

Well, that number is straight out of your ###. Argue your point instead of going with the herd.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

Everyone keeps saying GB clearly should have won. But the people saying this don't say a damn thing about the rest of the calls during the game except for that one. They cite that somehow that call is way more important because it decided the game, but if the score is 7-6 that play doesn't decide the game at all.You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, but the entire game wasn't clean. I wish someone would post a GIF of all the holds that weren't called in the second half. There's a reason Green Bay suddenly didn't get sacked in the second half.

Hmmm....phantom holding calls just like the phantom touchdown reception by Tate in the end zone? Sorry, but your reasoning for why there were no sacks in the 2nd half is nonsense.

Did you actually watch the game? I did, and I've re-watched it. You have no idea what you're talking about. And tell me why it was a phantom touchdown. I'll start by saying that Tate clearly had a PI not called on him, but it's already been said multiple times that those aren't really called since everyone is jostling for position. So let's hear your version of it, because there's enough disputable evidence to make it at worst iffy, and at best flat out wrong.

I'll do you one better. Show me where Tate has control and/or possession: This. Can't wait to here the argument FOR a guy who's head is being sit on by a player with the ball clutched to his chest.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

That's fine, you can have your win. The Hawks just didn't earn it, that's all. It was handed to them.

Incorrect. But if you need to keep spouting it, do it. We'll agree to disagree and I'll be here to say it every time.

That's fine too. However, 99.9% of football fans and anyone involved in the game agree with me.

Well, that number is straight out of your ###. Argue your point instead of going with the herd.

Why? Because no one agrees with me? All you have to do is watch the replay and pictures. What is there to explain except Tate clearly was not in control OR had possession. I don't know what Hawks fans are smoking, but 50 drunks in a bar would have called that an interception.

Face it: you're in an insanely small majority.

Here's another one for you to chew on.

 

[biju]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

Everyone keeps saying GB clearly should have won. But the people saying this don't say a damn thing about the rest of the calls during the game except for that one. They cite that somehow that call is way more important because it decided the game, but if the score is 7-6 that play doesn't decide the game at all.You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, but the entire game wasn't clean. I wish someone would post a GIF of all the holds that weren't called in the second half. There's a reason Green Bay suddenly didn't get sacked in the second half.

Hmmm....phantom holding calls just like the phantom touchdown reception by Tate in the end zone? Sorry, but your reasoning for why there were no sacks in the 2nd half is nonsense.

Did you actually watch the game? I did, and I've re-watched it. You have no idea what you're talking about. And tell me why it was a phantom touchdown. I'll start by saying that Tate clearly had a PI not called on him, but it's already been said multiple times that those aren't really called since everyone is jostling for position. So let's hear your version of it, because there's enough disputable evidence to make it at worst iffy, and at best flat out wrong.

I'll do you one better. Show me where Tate has control and/or possession: This. Can't wait to here the argument FOR a guy who's head is being sit on by a player with the ball clutched to his chest.

Ok, how about here:http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/556/943/Tate7_original.jpg?1348599104

and here:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1428497/GoodPic_medium.png

And you can see they both establish "control" here in this video:

http://www.q13fox.com/sports/football/seahawks/kcpq-seahawks-capitalize-on-lastsecond-hail-mary-pass-beat-packers-1412-20120924,0,5401209.story

Your picture is after they are both down on the ground and the defender, because of his leverage from being on top, rips it out of Tate's hands which doesn't count as loss of control for a catch per NFL rules.

People keep using those late pictures but don't seem to want to use the ones when they are both immediately hitting the ground.

 

[biju]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

They did earn it. You wouldn't be in position to win a game on the last play if it wasn't earned. You clearly didn't see the game.

You're clearly talking out of you a## again. They shouldn't have even been close to the end zone in the first place. But discounting that, the final play was clearly a gift from a ref who must have had money on the Seahawks. The only thing they earned was the scorn of non-Hawks homers like yourself. they didn't earn that win at all.

Clearly if that helps you feel better or sleep at night you can believe that. The behavior of the players on the packers was embarrassing. I could never like a group like that.

That's fine, you can have your win. The Hawks just didn't earn it, that's all. It was handed to them.

Incorrect. But if you need to keep spouting it, do it. We'll agree to disagree and I'll be here to say it every time.

That's fine too. However, 99.9% of football fans and anyone involved in the game agree with me.

Well, that number is straight out of your ###. Argue your point instead of going with the herd.

Why? Because no one agrees with me? All you have to do is watch the replay and pictures. What is there to explain except Tate clearly was not in control OR had possession. I don't know what Hawks fans are smoking, but 50 drunks in a bar would have called that an interception.

Face it: you're in an insanely small majority.

Here's another one for you to chew on.

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought he looked ridiculous after the Monday night. Take the win and be quiet about it. Everyone saw how the game ended.

Exactly. They only won the game with MASSIVE help from the refs. Better to shut up than prance around like you really earned it.

Everyone keeps saying GB clearly should have won. But the people saying this don't say a damn thing about the rest of the calls during the game except for that one. They cite that somehow that call is way more important because it decided the game, but if the score is 7-6 that play doesn't decide the game at all.You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, but the entire game wasn't clean. I wish someone would post a GIF of all the holds that weren't called in the second half. There's a reason Green Bay suddenly didn't get sacked in the second half.

Hmmm....phantom holding calls just like the phantom touchdown reception by Tate in the end zone? Sorry, but your reasoning for why there were no sacks in the 2nd half is nonsense.

Did you actually watch the game? I did, and I've re-watched it. You have no idea what you're talking about. And tell me why it was a phantom touchdown. I'll start by saying that Tate clearly had a PI not called on him, but it's already been said multiple times that those aren't really called since everyone is jostling for position. So let's hear your version of it, because there's enough disputable evidence to make it at worst iffy, and at best flat out wrong.

I'll do you one better. Show me where Tate has control and/or possession: This. Can't wait to here the argument FOR a guy who's head is being sit on by a player with the ball clutched to his chest.

Ok, how about here:http://cdn.bleacherr....jpg?1348599104

and here:

http://assets.sbnati...dPic_medium.png

And you can see they both establish "control" here in this video:

http://www.q13fox.co...0,5401209.story

Your picture is after they are both down on the ground and the defender, because of his leverage from being on top, rips it out of Tate's hands which doesn't count as loss of control for a catch per NFL rules.

People keep using those late pictures but don't seem to want to use the ones when they are both immediately hitting the ground.

Thanks for confirming my position. None of those prove your argument at all. Tate is AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE WITH HIS ARMS AROUND JENNINGS - WHO HIMSELF HAS THE BALL!

So possession/control/whatever is when a Seahawks receiver is holding the guy with the ball? You're out of your mind.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.Not only that, from what I posted above it's CLEAR Tate's hand comes off the ball and grabs jennings around the helmet.

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.Not only that, from what I posted above it's CLEAR Tate's hand comes off the ball and grabs jennings around the helmet.

You've edited your original post, so I'll post again. That doesn't matter. Rules--sometimes they are actually important in a game decided by them.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.Not only that, from what I posted above it's CLEAR Tate's hand comes off the ball and grabs jennings around the helmet.

You've edited your original post, so I'll post again. That doesn't matter. Rules--sometimes they are actually important in a game decided by them.

Funny how you bring up "Rules" when it was your guy in the end zone that shoved Shields out of his way. We're supposed to disregard rules DURING the play, but not AFTER the play? WTH?

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

he is willing to compromise integrity.So he comes across as a phony.

Ok, I'll bite. Where did he compromise integrity?

The integrity of the game was compromised Monday night. Have you been in a cave?

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.Not only that, from what I posted above it's CLEAR Tate's hand comes off the ball and grabs jennings around the helmet.

You've edited your original post, so I'll post again. That doesn't matter. Rules--sometimes they are actually important in a game decided by them.

Funny how you bring up "Rules" when it was your guy in the end zone that shoved Shields out of his way. We're supposed to disregard rules DURING the play, but not AFTER the play? WTH?

Already said that the PI wasn't called. Can't weasel your way out with this one.

 

[biju]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

he is willing to compromise integrity.So he comes across as a phony.

Ok, I'll bite. Where did he compromise integrity?

The integrity of the game was compromised Monday night. Have you been in a cave?

You said "he is willing to compromise integrity." How did he do that?

 

[MaxThreshold]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

Oh, please. Sorry, pal, i'm not going to bite for your convoluted "see, this is how it really happened - yeah that's the ticket" shtick. We all saw what happened and we all saw it explained over and over again ad nauseum how it was a bad call.The only people that agree with you is the NFL front office - the same guys that got the call wrong in the first place.

 

[kwille]

2012 Seattle Seahawks: 1W 2L

NFL’s rulebook, casebook confirm call was incorrect

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

Oh, please.

It's the wrong visual evidence *per the rules*. Keep trying to weasel out--this one didn't work either.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

Oh, please.

It's the wrong visual evidence *per the rules*. Keep trying to weasel out--this one didn't work either.

/beginbeeyotchslapYou're the one that's trying to sneak away from the truth. Is this your smokescreen'routine to avoid it? To call everyone else a "weasel"? Sorry, but you can't.

/endbeeyotchslap

Guess you didn't know the rules after all. Are you going to run now?

Seattle Seahawks 2*-1

 

[ImTheScientist]

2012 Seattle Seahawks: 1W 2L

NFL’s rulebook, casebook confirm call was incorrect

Thats funny because nfl.com has them listed at 2W 1Lhttp://www.nfl.com/standings

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

Oh, please.

It's the wrong visual evidence *per the rules*. Keep trying to weasel out--this one didn't work either.

You're the one that's trying to sneak away from the truth. Is this your smokescreen'routine to avoid it? To call everyone else a "weasel"? Sorry, but you can't.

I'm not calling everyone a weasel. You've been trying hard to not understand the rules and I've been calling you out. Seriously, that article is wrong and here's the reason why: they state that Jennings controlled the ball in the air, which is not possible. The rules in the item 5 of article 3 do NOT supersede what was already established in article 3 of what is defined as a completed pass. Item 5 is an adjunct of acticle 3, meaning supplemental, not essential.

You can't tell who controlled the ball first with single shots, and the Q13 link I posted above certainly doesn't show Jennings with control and Tate with no control.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

Oh, please.

It's the wrong visual evidence *per the rules*. Keep trying to weasel out--this one didn't work either.

You're the one that's trying to sneak away from the truth. Is this your smokescreen'routine to avoid it? To call everyone else a "weasel"? Sorry, but you can't.

I'm not calling everyone a weasel. You've been trying hard to not understand the rules and I've been calling you out. Seriously, that article is wrong and here's the reason why: they state that Jennings controlled the ball in the air, which is not possible. The rules in the item 5 of article 3 do NOT supersede what was already established in article 3 of what is defined as a completed pass. Item 5 is an adjunct of acticle 3, meaning supplemental, not essential.

You can't tell who controlled the ball first with single shots, and the Q13 link I posted above certainly doesn't show Jennings with control and Tate with no control.

OMG. So now the actual NFL casebook is wrong?I appreciate your effort, but you're just not seeing this in an objective manner. All evidence clearly shows Jennings in control. Once he establishes control (jennings has BOTH arms on the ball), another player (Tate) can't gain control (unless Jennings fumbles it).

 

[biju]

And that shows that who controlled it? What is the definition of control by the NFL rules? I'm guessing you have no idea. Go ahead and get it wrong and then I'll post what the rulebook states as I already have the data. You're in way over your head here--it might be best to say you're no longer interested in arguing this with a "homer Seahawks" and save some face.

yeah, i've seen you hawks homers are twisting yourself into pretzels over the last couple of days trying to make it fit. You don't have to post because it's clear you're trying to shoe-horn a square into a round hole.

This post is a device to get out of the pickle you've put yourself in. If you don't know the rules, don't care to educate yourself, and don't want me to post them because it will prove you wrong then I'm not sure even proving you wrong is going to do anything. But be clear: you don't understand the rules which is why you're trying to stop right here and you know it.

Sorry, pal. Keep twisting. But if you feel you need to twist yourself one more time to try and justify that "something isn't right" feeling you got (because you know that the call was wrong), go ahead. I'm all eyes.

You can't sneak out of this now by trying to change the subject--you know you can't come up with an argument with actual NFL rules. Instead you're using gifs that aren't relevant and pictures with zero context, kind of the same thing you're telling me didn't work for you. So?

Oh, please.

It's the wrong visual evidence *per the rules*. Keep trying to weasel out--this one didn't work either.

You're the one that's trying to sneak away from the truth. Is this your smokescreen'routine to avoid it? To call everyone else a "weasel"? Sorry, but you can't.

I'm not calling everyone a weasel. You've been trying hard to not understand the rules and I've been calling you out. Seriously, that article is wrong and here's the reason why: they state that Jennings controlled the ball in the air, which is not possible. The rules in the item 5 of article 3 do NOT supersede what was already established in article 3 of what is defined as a completed pass. Item 5 is an adjunct of acticle 3, meaning supplemental, not essential.

You can't tell who controlled the ball first with single shots, and the Q13 link I posted above certainly doesn't show Jennings with control and Tate with no control.

OMG. So now the actual NFL casebook is wrong?I appreciate your effort, but you're just not seeing this in an objective manner. All evidence clearly shows Jennings in control. Once he establishes control (jennings has BOTH arms on the ball), another player (Tate) can't gain control (unless Jennings fumbles it).

Actually no, I'm not arguing the casebook is wrong, but rather incorrectly applied. Jennings does not definitively control (by NFL rules standards) the ball before Tate. Tate does not appear to definitively lose control of the ball despite only having one hand on it. Control isn't defined by having two hands on the ball and simply put it would be difficult to establish when control was claimed. In other words, this casebook example doesn't apply to this scenario.

One thing that I will do is correct myself as I did misspeak: You can control the ball in the air, it's that possession cannot be established and possession is not a part of the scenario at this point.

 

[DepthCharts]

I'm suspicious of people who don't like Pete Carroll.

Oh no... the coach is enthusiastic!!!

not sure what he did wrong to deserve hate. All he is is positive and a nice guy.

He coached USC.Signed

Husky first, Seahawk second

Feel the same way about his OC?

Owned? He's talking about a guy who threw for 500+ yards vs a&m and is part of the Norm Chow coaching tree, not a frikin rah rah cheerleader coaching tree, please. He is BYU first, USC about 9th, please. next?