Raiders at Bengals: Wildcard Discussion

[nospk 230]

14 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’m wondering if he blew the whistle because he thought Burrow was over the line, seeing as he wasn’t close to being out of bounds. 

QB running  past the scrimmage line does not end a play

[jrokh 569]

 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

1 hour ago, nospk said:

QB running  past the scrimmage line does not end a play

Good call. 

[AxeElf 787]

7 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

No it's not because in that situation, the players broke the rules.  Nice try though.

And in this case the refs broke the rules.

So both are examples of rules being broken, and you arguing that they weren't.  Nice try though.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

11 hours ago, AxeElf said:

And in this case the refs broke the rules.

So both are examples of rules being broken, and you arguing that they weren't.  Nice try though.

You're arguing against a point I'm not making.  I said, I know the refs didn't follow the rules, I just don't care because the result of the play was correct.  Had they followed the rules and taken the points off the board, the Bengals get screwed because the whistle had no impact on the play.  In your argument, the players got points they should have because they broke the rules.  The scenarios are completely different because breaking the rules caused the points to be scored.

[nobody 2,043]

It looked to me like the DB stopped.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

10 minutes ago, nobody said:

It looked to me like the DB stopped.

Even if he didn't, he wasn't going to stop the ball from being caught.

[AxeElf 787]

12 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The scenarios are completely different because breaking the rules caused the points to be scored.

In both cases, breaking the rules caused the points to be scored.

In the case of the player traveling, the player broke the rules.

In the case of the Raiders' TD, the officials broke the rules.

You saying that the points "should" have counted amounts to nothing more than saying that a rushing TD called back for a holding penalty nowhere near the RB "should" have counted, because the holding didn't affect the outcome of the play.

It should NOT have counted, if the rule had been enforced properly, any more than a basket made after traveling "should" count because he could have made the shot (in the judgment of the referee) even if he had made a dribble.

What "should" happen is that the officials enforce the rules as written.  What should have happened did not happen.

Arguing that any further would no longer be ignorance of evidence; it would now become evidence of ignorance.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

11 hours ago, AxeElf said:

In both cases, breaking the rules caused the points to be scored.

In the case of the player traveling, the player broke the rules.

In the case of the Raiders' TD, the officials broke the rules.

You saying that the points "should" have counted amounts to nothing more than saying that a rushing TD called back for a holding penalty nowhere near the RB "should" have counted, because the holding didn't affect the outcome of the play.

It should NOT have counted, if the rule had been enforced properly, any more than a basket made after traveling "should" count because he could have made the shot (in the judgment of the referee) even if he had made a dribble.

What "should" happen is that the officials enforce the rules as written.  What should have happened did not happen.

Arguing that any further would no longer be ignorance of evidence; it would now become evidence of ignorance.

Wrong again.  You're using scenarios involving players breaking the rules to gain an advantage.  That didn't happen here.  No player on the field did anything wrong or anything to gain an unfair advantage.

[AxeElf 787]

4 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Wrong again.  You're using scenarios involving players breaking the rules to gain an advantage.  That didn't happen here.  No player on the field did anything wrong or anything to gain an unfair advantage.

Yes, it was the officials who caused the unfair advantage in this case.

You can exhibit your ignorance all offseason if you like; doesn't change anything.