1. Hi Guest, Registrations are now open. See you on the inside.
    Dismiss Notice

Unbelievable joke of a call by the ref on

Discussion in 'Steelers Talk' started by Utpittsburghfan, Oct 6, 2019.

  1. steelersrule6

    steelersrule6 Well-Known Member

    27,400
    6,623
    Nov 14, 2011
    The Colts had a similar hit on Mahomes, guess what no roughing the passer was called.
     
  2. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Sure, whatever. Again, I was correcting you when you said any contact with the head is supposed to be a penalty. It isn't supposed to be according to the rules expert that was on SNF. It is forcible contact with the head that is supposed to be called. You accused me of being argumentative but it seems to me you are the one that wants to argue about this when my point was really simple: the rule does not call for all contact to be called, only forcible contact with the head.
     
  3. Formerscribe

    Formerscribe Well-Known Member

    21,059
    3,499
    Dec 18, 2016
    You are talking about the interpretation of one expert, not the actual rule book. This also something you claim you heard on broadcast, not a video clip or transcript of the actual comments or even the guy's name. You'll pardon me if I'm not swayed by that.

    You are being argumentative because your original claim was wrong. You claimed that the roughing call against the Ravens for hitting Rudolph's facemask was incorrect. It wasn't. It was a correct call.
     
  4. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    I never said that it was an incorrect call. My point has never changed and I'm not sure why you are insisting on arguing with me about it. That point once again is that the rule does not call for any and all contact to the head to be a penalty. It calls for forcible contact to the head to be a penalty. If that is wrong all you have to do is quote the rule to prove it. You don't need to make up lies about what I said. I'm going to include all my responses to you so you can see that I am telling the truth and it is you who are looking for an argument and going about it in an underhanded way.
     
  5. Formerscribe

    Formerscribe Well-Known Member

    21,059
    3,499
    Dec 18, 2016
    Actually, you are the one claiming to make a correction. By all means, look up the rule and show us, because you and I both know it is called exactly the way I put it. If you touch a quarterback's head, they will call it a personal foul.
     
  6. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Not going to admit you lied (or were simply mistaken; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt despite you not deserving it) when you said I called the call incorrect? I never said that.
     
  7. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
  8. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    I literally cannot make it clearer that you are looking for an argument that isn't here. You were wrong about the rule and you were wrong about what I said.
     
  9. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Here, I'll make it easy for you, Formerscribe. Just copy and paste: "My bad. You didn't say what I said you said and I was wrong about the rule."
     
  10. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    41,499
    8,939
    Oct 16, 2011
    I thought the call was weak but it was correct. I think you are being led astray by the use of "forcibly", the word is used throughout the rule book, even in regards to helmet to helmet contact.

    I've seen that Mason penalty called a number of times. It's pansy ass but they don't want any contact with the QB's head.
     
  11. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    I didn't have any problem with the call. I simply pointed out that Formerscribe was wrong when he said that any contact with the QB's head is supposed to be a penalty as a rules analyst had said it is only forcible contact that is supposed to be a penalty. I even acknowledged that generally any contact is called but that isn't the rule. He then tried to argue with me about it, and even went so far as to claim I said it was a bad call when I didn't. I showed that he was wrong about the rule and wrong about what he said I said. He went from trying to draw me into an argument to completely disappearing without bothering to acknowledge that he was wrong about the rule and about what I said. Up above I even quoted everything I said to him so he could see I never said it was a bad call. Whatever. It's clear to me now what sort of poster he is and I will avoid bothering with him in the future. He's one of the ones that loves to start fights, argues dishonestly, and then disappears when he can't spin anymore.
     
  12. Roonatic

    Roonatic Well-Known Member

    8,558
    1,814
    Sep 4, 2017
    Oohh, he'll be back.
     
    • Hilarious Hilarious x 1
  13. Lizard72

    Lizard72

    20,174
    1,645
    Oct 23, 2011
    Yup as shown by this non call and the uphold on review!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. BigBensBigBong

    BigBensBigBong Well-Known Member

    5,732
    847
    Dec 14, 2014
    WOW! Not pass interference? Incredible!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Formerscribe

    Formerscribe Well-Known Member

    21,059
    3,499
    Dec 18, 2016
    Ah. Now I see what you were babbling about on that other thread.

    My mistake. I did mix you up with AFan. You supported his point, but you weren't the one arguing the call.

    Blast is right. I was posting about how the rule is enforced. If you touch a quarterback's head and the officials see it, they will call it.

    Seriously, the last thing I do is run from arguments. If you're going to come after me, do it honestly. It's far too easy to lose track of threads here.
     
  16. Lizard72

    Lizard72

    20,174
    1,645
    Oct 23, 2011
    Another note: I thought these officials were a part of a set crew?

    Looking at game books to try and figure out what crew is calling these things one way or another and I'm seeing some guys being on multiple different crews.

    Example: The Line judge for the Pit/SF game is the same one as the NY/NE game, but that's the only guy that's the same between them.
     
  17. SteelersFanIrl

    SteelersFanIrl Well-Known Member

    3,644
    1,031
    Mar 3, 2019
    Looking at this Edmunds penalty vs Seattle on that Hail Mary was scandalous. It was a much less obvious foul, if it even was a foul.

    I know we only ever focus on when we are wronged but we seem to continually be on the end of game changing bad calls.
     
  18. Lizard72

    Lizard72

    20,174
    1,645
    Oct 23, 2011
    Or even the OPI that was called and upheld!
     
  19. Formerscribe

    Formerscribe Well-Known Member

    21,059
    3,499
    Dec 18, 2016
    I didn't have to spin. The rule is called exactly the way I posted it.

    Funny how after stalking me to another thread, you disappeared when I easily countered the false accusation you made about me. Does that mean you run and hide when you can't spin? Or were you just wrong in making that claim about me? It has to be one or the other.

    I wonder if I would be right to stalk TheTerribleOwl to another thread now that the situations are reversed.
     
  20. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    I didn't disappear because of your response. I wasn't on the board AT ALL, unlike you who continued to respond to other threads but immediately dropped this one once I showed you that you were in fact wrong about the rule. And to claim our disagreement was about how the rule is enforced is a total lie as I right away agreed that usually all contact with the head is actually called. I repeatedly explained to you that that may be how it is enforced but it is NOT the rule. Seriously, I quoted every damn thing I said to you a little earlier and included in that is where I said that I agree with you on how the rule is enforced. The whole time I repeatedly explained that I was talking about how the rule is actually written, and it is written with the word "forcibly" in it. You kept trying to turn that into an argument. You couldn't simply say that you were wrong to claim that the rule is actually that all contact is called. You still try to spin.
     
    • Very Optimistic Very Optimistic x 1
  21. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Here are all my responses to you yet again. Please tell me how anything I wrote is at all confusing. It all clearly states that I am disagreeing with you about how the rule is written, not how it is enforced. All you had to do was say that you were wrong when you said the rule called for all contact with the QB's head to be a penalty. You couldn't do that and instead lied about what I said. Now you continue to try to spin instead of just admitting you were wrong. It isn't hard to do. Everybody is wrong sometimes. Just admit that you were wrong about what I said and about what the rule actually is. Again, I freaking agreed about how it is usually enforced. You were looking for an argument and now you have one. It happens to be one in which you are completely wrong and have no standing, but I don't expect you to ever admit this despite it being painfully obvious.

     
  22. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    I mean, this is so confusing: my point was really simple: the rule does not call for all contact to be called, only forcible contact with the head.
     
  23. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Wrong and wrong. I was clearly talking about the rule and made this very clear. And I never said it was a bad call. I said you had the rule wrong, which you did.
     
  24. TheTerribleOwl

    TheTerribleOwl Well-Known Member

    1,505
    336
    Sep 1, 2017
    Still refusing to deal with what I actually said. I see you are avoiding this thread where my actual words are right here for everyone to see. Again, nothing subjective about whether the word "forcibly" is in the rule or not. It is.

    Ready to finally admit that you were wrong about the rule and I was right? Of course not. you will keep trying to spin this as an argument about something else despite from the beginning me making it clear I was disagreeing with what you said the rule was. I was right and you were wrong. Deal with it.
     
  25. Formerscribe

    Formerscribe Well-Known Member

    21,059
    3,499
    Dec 18, 2016
    Actually, your initial argument was based upon what you claim you heard from a a rule expert you didn't name while watching a game, so not wrong at all. You didn't actually look the rule up until later.

    I admitted I mixed you up with another poster. You, on the other hand, still can't admit your claim about me running from the argument was false. You insist on such integrity from others, so much so that you stalked me onto another thread with it, but you fail to live up to such integrity yourself. I've already explained why your claim about the rule is not correct. Blast explained it to you, too. At best, it's subjective. What is not subjective is that you inappropriately dragged this onto another thread and made a false claim about me that you refuse to acknowledge. You also continue to act as if I didn't admit I mixed you up with another poster.

    Let me know when you are ready to address all of this honestly. Until then, please stop dragging it into other threads and send me a PM if you want my attention. What you did was all about finding an excuse for a snide personal attack. Otherwise, you would have used the PM function to bring me back to this thread.
     

Share This Page

Welcome to the ultimate resource for Steelers fans. Sign Up Here!