HOW IN THE FUCK????

I've always felt like it was rigged but mostly that was just being a fanatic who loves the Steelers and hates the Pats but after this shit right here.. this is just a blatant fuck you to all fans.

How do you change the rule interpretation for the SB? How Sway?

I still think the Pats got every fucking call there way leading up to the SB when it came to "what is a catch" but then to see them rule the opposite way in the SB was lovely.. and shitty, now that they admit they fucked everyone over... except Philly fans, lol.


https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/Bolt/NFL-VP-of-officiating-admits-refs-handled-Super-Bowl-catch-rule-differently-116754835

Tim Hasselbeck spoke on ESPN's NFL Live after the league changed the catch rule on Tuesday and said that the NFL's VP of Officiating, Al Riveron, told Chris Mortensen and Sal Paolantonio that catches were handled differently in the Super Bowl then they were over the rest of the season. This will have the rare effect of infuriating multiple fan bases equally. The New England Patriots can argue that the league didn't stick to the letter of the law, and it cost them a championship. Given that organization's history with the league office, most notably in the DeflateGate and SpyGate scandals, this will no doubt light a fire under fans who are still stunned by the loss.

Just as angry, though, would be Pittsburgh Steelers fans. They would argue that if the league was aware of how broken the rule was, they should have been so well before Jesse James ever tried to catch a game-winning touchdown against the Patriots in the regular season. In their eyes, the Dez Bryant catch should have forced change on the league's part, especially if they were willing to enact that change before a formal vote was taken. Essentially, common sense dictated that the league handle catches differently in the Super Bowl because the rule was broken, but that common sense was absent when the Steelers needed it to beat the Patriots.

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

with it.

Would understand the frustration for fans tho.

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

more willing to extend for the goal line?

it is kind of weird for them to change how they were calling it for the super bowl and i know i was surprised they called it a catch but not mad because it definitely felt like a catch, just not according to the stupid old rule.

i think as long as they didnt call it one way then another during the same game its whatever.

moreso a mental adjustment in expectations of how the game is being called. Basically the difference between a fan watching a game this year and last year.

Be better at your job, losers.

You don’t here me talking shit about the 2008 Phillies. Get a ring without a decade’s worth of dust on it, then talk.

But hey maybe I’m wrong maybe Avatar is still hot in the streets.

so they should be able to talk shit to bama, clemson, and other teams that have won a title post betamax?

look, you can act like 9 years is a lifetime ago but when you have the most SB wins of any team and have the youngest winningest coach in the NFL.. you can talk shit

and anyone trying to tell me I can't must be new to this whole SB thing.

They were finally using a reasonable definition of a catch.

and I HATE the Pats

You have millions and millions watching who don't watch during the season and don't know about the stupid catch rule. The outrage and confusion of ruling those SB catches incomplete would have been horrible for the NFL. The outrage from such calls was bad enough during the season among fans who know the game. It would have been increased 100 fold because you have so many fresh eyes watching.

>and I HATE the Pats


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

We can agree to disagree. I simply feel like the following contexts matter, and justify the special SB rule enforcement:
1. it was the SB (as I explained above)
2. The rule was already due for change and the way the SB was officiated was how catches would be officiated from that point on

But your stance is certainly more justifiable than mine by the letter of the law.
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

>You have millions and millions watching who don't watch
>during the season and don't know about the stupid catch rule.
>The outrage and confusion of ruling those SB catches
>incomplete would have been horrible for the NFL.

why would all these casual fans be outraged and why would the NFL be worried about them? Are these people gonna magically become huge fans in Week 1 of the next season unless they see a call they don't like? Why is upsetting them worse than showing yourself to be inconsistent in front of die-hard fans?

The outrage
>from such calls was bad enough during the season among fans
>who know the game. It would have been increased 100 fold
>because you have so many fresh eyes watching.

You don't change the rules for the Super Bowl. This should be pretty basic.

>why would all these casual fans be outraged

the same reason dedicated fans are outraged. You see a catch but the refs tell you it isn't a catch.

>and why would the
>NFL be worried about them? Are these people gonna magically
>become huge fans in Week 1 of the next season unless they see
>a call they don't like? Why is upsetting them worse than
>showing yourself to be inconsistent in front of die-hard
>fans?

Just a bad look because it's the most visible game of the year. That's all.

>You don't change the rules for the Super Bowl. This should be
>pretty basic.

You don't think the context matters, and I do. That's fine.

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

>the same reason dedicated fans are outraged. You see a catch
>but the refs tell you it isn't a catch.

casual fans don't get outraged and dedicated fans are scratching their heads. this is a worse result.

>Just a bad look because it's the most visible game of the
>year. That's all.

Again, I think this is a worse look. You change the rules in the offseason, that's how it always is.

>You don't think the context matters, and I do. That's fine.

But there have been plenty of shitty rules that needed changing or clarification in the past. You don't do that for one game, you wait till the offseason. It took them like 10+ years to change the tuck rule.

>
>>the same reason dedicated fans are outraged. You see a
>catch
>>but the refs tell you it isn't a catch.
>
>casual fans don't get outraged and dedicated fans are
>scratching their heads. this is a worse result.
>
>>Just a bad look because it's the most visible game of the
>>year. That's all.
>
>Again, I think this is a worse look. You change the rules in
>the offseason, that's how it always is.
>
>>You don't think the context matters, and I do. That's fine.
>
>But there have been plenty of shitty rules that needed
>changing or clarification in the past. You don't do that for
>one game, you wait till the offseason. It took them like 10+
>years to change the tuck rule.
>
>

A lot of your point is agree-to-disagree stuff, so I'll address one point that I think is still up for debate. You think reality is a worse look than if the NFL had officiated the SB the same way they did the rest of the season. By a pure rules perspective, sure. Any inconsistency in rule enforcement is a bad look. But this is a very controversial rule for which context cannot be ignored. Judging by the number of people upset vs satisfied, I'd assert that there are many more people pleased with the reality result vs if they had used consistent enforcement. You have two groups. One group, the one currently displeased, is, from what I can tell, a small amount of people on various social media. The other group is the casual, oblivious fanbase, plus in-the-know fans who know the enforcement was inconsistent, but are satisfied because they feel the refs "got it right." By the numbers, the way it turned out is a better look IMO because the latter group far outnumbers the former.

So by the rules, sure, you're right. But based on what most viewers qualitatively perceive to be a catch, it's a far better look and the NFL completely got it right.

So I guess we could debate what constitutes a "worse look"...
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

As I stated elsewhere, the Pats lost cause of Belichick and blahblahblah... just getting that out of the way...

With that said, if this were the other way around and the Pats benefited from a last-minute rule change people would lose their minds and they'd be right to do so. It wouldn't matter the context or the fact that the rule should be changed/was going to be changed later.

RE: "from a pure rules perspective" again, this isn't the first shitty rule that's existed yet it's the first time in 52 years they changed a rule for the Super Bowl. I hated the catch rule myself and this move still makes no sense.

It does make sense, or else they wouldn't have done it. It's not like they randomly decided to widen the goal posts to decreased missed PATs or lengthened the play clock to decrease delay of games. There were many events and plenty of context leading up to the decision. Maybe you don't like it, but you can't say it makes no sense.

>As I stated elsewhere, the Pats lost cause of Belichick and
>blahblahblah... just getting that out of the way...
>
>With that said, if this were the other way around and the Pats
>benefited from a last-minute rule change people would lose
>their minds and they'd be right to do so. It wouldn't matter
>the context or the fact that the rule should be changed/was
>going to be changed later.
>
>RE: "from a pure rules perspective" again, this isn't the
>first shitty rule that's existed yet it's the first time in 52
>years they changed a rule for the Super Bowl. I hated the
>catch rule myself and this move still makes no sense.


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

2 questions:

1) can you think of another rule they changed right before the Super Bowl?

2) the rule obviously needed clarification but why do you think was it only a dire situation for the Super Bowl? It was an ongoing conversation the whole season yet the other playoff games weren't important enough for this? Yeah they easily could've and should've waited for the offseason like they have for literally every other rule.

Oh...so the rule was different for us...and the Pats were being officiated by a separate set of rules...got it

FOH

why would you be upset to find out they changed the catch rule for the SB?

FTR, I'm still partying off the SB W...and plan to until somebody takes our crown

...but I don't want to hear a mother fuckin' peep out of anybody trying to tarnish that W...

been beating back the 'trick play was illegal' contingent since

if the 'rules were different' crowd want to stand in the same line

Fuck em'

we won, deal

glad yall won

and no one can take it from you

just think its foul for the NFL to keep a controversy going

for the Super Bowl. Both of those things are true.

im thinking what is considered a fumble might have some problems

as a cowboys fan, blah. i had long accepted it wasnt a catch, dont tell me it was.

I was texting with a friend in Philly and we both kept saying "nah, they will overturn that TD"

0_0

oh really?