<B>I was trying to say that defending the refs' wrong call in the Browns game precludes the ability to complain about the melee that resulted. Either you support everyone following the rules or you support nobody following the rules. Saying one side can break the rules and the other can't is wrong to me</B> I disagree. The key difference is that in one case (the ref), the breaking of the rule was not intentional. There was confusion and it <I>may</I> have resulted in a mistake. I'd guess that if the officials clearly knew they were breaking the rule, they wouldn't have done it. In the case of the beer-throwing fans, that was completely intentional. There was no mistake there like the beer accidentally flying out of people's hands onto the field. Mistakes happen. Defending mistakes is completely different from defending acts of violence (or whatever you want to call it).
Actually the rule is more like "you cannot signal a play to be reviewed once a play has been run." According to the refs (for what it's worth), the replay official in the box signalled the ref prior to the snap. If that is truly the case, then the replay was the correct call. If that was not the case then the Browns should have been penalized for intentional grounding since Couch pump-faked prior to the spike. Regardless, the fans behavior in both games was boorish, immature and dangerous.
I guess I don't understand how the pump fake would lead to intentional grounding...he wasn't going to pass it, so he wasn't trying to avoid a sack.
Based on what? I admit that I was frustrated last night, and though I personally would not have done that, I can't blame those who did. I've tried to think all day of ways that fans can better handle the sitation, but I really don't know of anything. It'd be great if the NFL would do something about it, but they actually commended those idiots in Cleveland. While it may not have been the best thing to do, the Saints fans at least tried to make some kind of statement for the BS that was going on last night, and I can't blame them for it. Major: the thousands of dollars figure was for Saints fans as a whole that attended that game.
Maybe they should give the ref in the booth a red flag to throw in case his beeper doesn't work. There is no way in hell a coach would have gotten a replay in that situation if everything happend the same way.
http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/intentionalgrounding.html He wasn't trying to avoid a sack, so intentional grounding should not have been called on that play, regardless of the double pump.
I'm curious Cat, Grizzlies fans were frustrated with the fact that Francis forced a trade from there, was it ok for them to throw garbage at him like they did when he went up there because in theory he cost them a marketable name and thus thousands of dollars and potentially a franchise, in theory? They were throwing tomatoes and all kind of garbage, but it was ok because they were frustrated with him!? I worry about this country sometimes. I don't see how people can't realize that it's WRONG to throw bottles and crap at people when they don't get their way. As a grown-up we tell kids to talk things out and not throw things at people, but it's ok for adults to do the same thing?
However, Couch did break the "intentional spike" rule with the pump fake, I don't know what they should have called, but obviously something should have been called. <i>Tim Farris, Madera, Calif.: How come when a QB spikes the ball to stop the clock, he is not penalized for intentional grounding? These are two separate rules. In intentional grounding, the QB is penalized for the attempt to save a loss of yardage. It is not a foul to spike the ball in an attempt to stop the clock. Keep in mind the only legal way to spike the ball to stop the clock is to take the snap from under center and immediately spike the ball into the ground. Thanks for your question. </i>
Rocks, What Steve did was legal. It may have been unethical, but at the very least it was legal. What happened in Cleveland and New Orleans is illegal. Look, I'm not saying let's all get out and have a bottle throwing party. I just think the fans should do something to voice their opinions. Perhaps they would've been better off starting a rally after the game, or a resounding chant of "bull****" for the remainder of the 4th quarter. I don't know. But the way I see it is these officials stripped Saints fans (collectively) of thousands of dollars, and the fans had a right to be upset. This probably wasn't the best way to handle it, but nevertheless I can't really blame them either.
The officials DID NOT strip the fans of thousands of dollars. The fans came to be entertained and they were. Actually what the officials did in New Orleans wasn't illegal. It was a bad call but NOT illegal. The Browns call really wasn't illegal or against the rules either it was just to late. In the end the call was right because the guy didn't make the catch. I can understand the fans voicing their disapproval but you do that to the league offices or boo. Throwing bottles isn't the right thing. What Francis may have been legal, but I can understand why Grizzlies fans would be upset with him. And whether it's viewed as legal or illegal or against the rules it's the same type of situation because you have a bunch of ticked off fans who thought they were screwed. And both did stupid things. They didn't have a dime stripped from them. They paid their money to see a game, they got a game, albeit with a bad call or two. People talk about how Karl Malone bearhugged Drexler allowing Stockton to shoot the game winning 3 in the 1997 conference finals and the officials never made the call costing the Rockets potentially a trip to the NBA Finals and an NBA championship, do you think the fans lost thousands of dollars there? Should the fans have littered the fcourt with debris? See how this goes around, one bad call shouldn't equal violent fan backlash. There's a ton of better ways to deal with this.
Cat -- how about if we just let them shoot the refs, would that be okay? I guess it wouldn't really be the best way to handle the situation, but you couldn't really blame them. I mean the refs may have made a bad call, what choice do the fans have?
It was pretty obvious that he was going to spike the ball. You're simply getting bogged down in semantics by arguing whether or not the spike was immediate or not.
Umm, there's quite a difference in throwing some bottles on the field and killing someone. If someone stole some money from you, I'm guessing you would want to hit them, not kill them. Rocks, I'm hoping it's illegal for the refs to make calls on the field based on complaints from the other team. As I understand it, they're supposed to "call it like they see it." And no, I don't have absolute proof that this wasn't the case. But whatever the Rams whined about they ended up getting that play or down the line. Maybe it's possible that it didn't influence the officials, but I'm not buying it.
Considering the officials are protecting their head with their hands, I have my doubts that it could do that much damage. And the majority of those fans were just throwing the bottles onto the field, not at the officials. (to make a statement) P.S. Spelling error. Should be hit, I'm assuming.
No, Clutch doesn't like liberals, so he simply edited my post right after I posted so I'd be out of the contest.
I see your point, though I would also note that the NFL is not defending a mistake, they are denying a mistake ever occurred. If they admitted that the refs made a mistake, I would probably feel differently about the situation hindsightwise. Instead, they cover their posteriors and claim no mistake was made. And since I believe that the replay official is lying to cover himself, the situation ceases to be a mistake (and I also don't think that ignorance of the rules is an excuse, either, assuming that was the problem). And to answer an earlier question, I am not a Browns fan. I was an Oilers fan (I hated the Browns, not as much as I hate Hitler but more often).
