PDA

View Full Version : Yahoo Headline DISGUSTING.....



BlueJayC
02-23-2012, 04:00 PM
The hacks at Yahoo never cease to amaze me....whether it be that *****hat Jason Cole or Tiki Barber spewing Giants hate. The content of the actual article isdecent but the way in which the present it on the cover page is despicable....as if it was tyhe Giants strategy. Mara brought up the best point anyhow.</P>


Article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_nfl_rules_committee_buddy_ryan_patriots_giant s022212</P>


Headline: http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h127/jasonjcollins/Yahoo.jpg</P>

Pakman
02-23-2012, 04:04 PM
LOL I loved it man. I don't care about what Yahoo says.

Funny thing is Pats got screwed legally. That's what they get for all that spygate ****.

I couldn't CARE LESS...I GOT A RING SON!!

jppmvp90
02-23-2012, 04:06 PM
at the end of the day, we are the champs

ebick
02-23-2012, 04:11 PM
I thought about that one more.....it's a defensive penalty....if the play had been succesful, the offense could have declined the penalty. It's almost like a free play for the offense....unless you think that the reason that they play was unsuccesful was because of the extra man.

sharick88
02-23-2012, 04:12 PM
Jason Cole is a fool anyways. He probably had money on the patriots. The giants beat the patriots fair and square.

nygsb42champs
02-23-2012, 04:13 PM
What a surprise the Giants get blamed for something else. Let them change the rule.

Tuckit91
02-23-2012, 04:23 PM
Tuck was slow getting off the field,So how was it strategy?

iBleedBlue88
02-23-2012, 04:32 PM
A pats fan friend of mine brought this up to me a little while ago, claimed we won because we used a loop hole. I responded in hte imortal words of Steve Mariucci (sp?) "Bummer"

MattMeyerBud
02-23-2012, 04:34 PM
A pats fan friend of mine brought this up to me a little while ago, claimed we won because we used a loop hole. I responded in hte imortal words of Steve Mariucci (sp?) "Bummer"

tell your friend his team lost because they can't crack scoring the teens against us in the big game

Seducer
02-23-2012, 04:51 PM
Tuck was slow getting off the field,So how was it strategy?</P>


Lots of people assumed it may have been intentional but not many actual noticed them show the replay of Tuck trying to get off the field. It obviously makes for better headlines but it was done completely by accident.</P>

NYGRealityCheck
02-23-2012, 06:55 PM
That was Obviously not an intentional move. Tuck was rushing to the back to the sideline. Also, that penalty gave 5 yards to the Pats and easily put Brady within reach of the endzone on one throw.

Any act that is deemed intentional by the refs are covered as it says in the article. "Under the terms of a palpably unfair act, the officials have discretion over what the penalty can be, up to and including awarding a touchdown."

There's no loophole. Patriots lost. Giants won the Superbowl. Looks like the "many fans and critics" can't accept that fact more than 2 weeks later.

ebick
02-23-2012, 06:58 PM
Same thing happened in XLII, only it worked to Pats advantage.....BB even threw the challenge flag to get it called and the 5 yards gave him a 1st instead of having to punt.

Harooni
02-23-2012, 07:02 PM
I think when we faked injuries it opened a few eyes. They want to make sure the giants aren't abusing the system. Which is funny because peyton has been no huddling and abusing the rules for years to get his edge.

NYGRealityCheck
02-23-2012, 07:03 PM
Same thing happened in XLII, only it worked to Pats advantage.....BB even threw the challenge flag to get it called and the 5 yards gave him a 1st instead of having to punt.

Chase Blackburn. Too bad the Patriots squandered the penalty by going for it on 4th and 16/17 on the same drive in the middle of the game, which ended up giving the Giants much better field position than the punt would have. Haha!

JDE123
02-23-2012, 08:44 PM
Well let's write Yahoo! Sports a letter:

Dear Editor,

How dare you give us credit for ingeniously exploiting a loophole in the NFL rules en route to winning the Super Bowl. We are all offended by your suggestion that we are intelligent enough to devise this strategy, and clever enough to employ it at the absolute perfect time to ensure victory. In actuality, we were too disorganized to have the correct personnel on the field and one of our players was too lazy to get off in time.

In summary, we are neither intelligent nor clever (as you have suggested) but in fact disorganized and lazy. Please get your facts straight and stop insulting us.

Sincerely,
Ima Fended

swimeasy
02-23-2012, 09:07 PM
That was Obviously not an intentional move. Tuck was rushing to the back to the sideline. Also, that penalty gave 5 yards to the Pats and easily put Brady within reach of the endzone on one throw.

Any act that is deemed intentional by the refs are covered as it says in the article. "Under the terms of a palpably unfair act, the officials have discretion over what the penalty can be, up to and including awarding a touchdown."

There's no loophole. Patriots lost. Giants won the Superbowl. Looks like the "many fans and critics" can't accept that fact more than 2 weeks later.

This!

Pats fans we know were more upset about the loss on the clock than the yards. But it explicitly states that the present rule already allows for this:



"Under the terms of a palpably unfair act, the officials have discretion
over what the penalty can be, up to and including awarding a touchdown.</p>





Or do something as simple as putting time back on the clock.</p>



“You could have the ref do a lot of things,” Cincinnati Bengals (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/cin/) coach Marvin Lewis said. “The situation is really already covered.”</p>Props to John Mara for still doing the right thing to seek further clarification.

<font color="#FF0000">Just like the Pats admin actively sought clarification over filming rules.</font> [:P]

This is clear documentation for any haters still trying to get useless excuse mileage. Thanks Yahoo!

SweetZombieJesus
02-24-2012, 07:09 AM
I thought about that one more.....it's a defensive penalty....if the play had been succesful, the offense could have declined the penalty. It's almost like a free play for the offense....unless you think that the reason that they play was unsuccesful was because of the extra man.

But the point of the loophole is that time comes off the clock no matter what. Remember, this play ran the clock down to 0:05. So why wouldn't you put 30 defenders on the field every play in this situation?

SweetZombieJesus
02-24-2012, 07:11 AM
Tuck was slow getting off the field,So how was it strategy?</p>


Lots of people assumed it may have been intentional but not many actual noticed them show the replay of Tuck trying to get off the field. It obviously makes for better headlines but it was done completely by accident.</p>

Really if any rule needs to change it's the flag for too many men when players are making a clear effort to get off the field.

giantyankee1976
02-24-2012, 08:15 AM
Well let's write Yahoo! Sports a letter:

Dear Editor,

How dare you give us credit for ingeniously exploiting a loophole in the NFL rules en route to winning the Super Bowl. We are all offended by your suggestion that we are intelligent enough to devise this strategy, and clever enough to employ it at the absolute perfect time to ensure victory. In actuality, we were too disorganized to have the correct personnel on the field and one of our players was too lazy to get off in time.

In summary, we are neither intelligent nor clever (as you have suggested) but in fact disorganized and lazy. Please get your facts straight and stop insulting us.

Sincerely,
Ima Fended


LOL

co-signed

the recent years of success for our Giants has really opened my eyes to the "general" public attitude towards them.

They're fine with us as long as we don't win Championships.

nygfanmaybe
02-24-2012, 08:35 AM
Wow...somebody might have cheated to get an edge. Am I the only one that sees the irony in this? I wonder if they had to make a rule change regarding filiming opponents practice sessions?

buddy33
02-24-2012, 08:38 AM
So what's the problem? It is an issue and maybe it should be fixed. I don't think anyone really thinks it was intentional. Maybe the refs should be able to put time back on the clock. Then again, will they do that on every defensive penalty called during the game?

Do I think that is the reason why the game was won or lost? Absolutely not. Only Patriots fans might be saying that and that's because of the end result. Of all the people I know that don't like the Giants none of them have mentioned that play to me.

ebick
02-24-2012, 08:48 AM
I thought about that one more.....it's a defensive penalty....if the play had been succesful, the offense could have declined the penalty. It's almost like a free play for the offense....unless you think that the reason that they play was unsuccesful was because of the extra man.

But the point of the loophole is that time comes off the clock no matter what. Remember, this play ran the clock down to 0:05. So why wouldn't you put 30 defenders on the field every play in this situation?
</P>


I realize that and thought the same thing initially....but let's stop for a minute and consider the catch being made on that play, or the Giants not having 12 men. The time comes off the clock then too, yes? It was the risk they took. The penalty in reality meant nothing except to give them 5 yards.In terms of the clock, t would not have worked out any differently.</P>


What if it was defensive holding, or offsides.......no difference.</P>

Joe Morrison
02-24-2012, 09:35 AM
The hacks at Yahoo never cease to amaze me....whether it be that *****hat Jason Cole or Tiki Barber spewing Giants hate. The content of the actual article isdecent but the way in which the present it on the cover page is despicable....as if it was tyhe Giants strategy. Mara brought up the best point anyhow.</P>


Article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_nfl_rules_committee_buddy_ryan_patriots_giant s022212</P>


Headline: http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h127/jasonjcollins/Yahoo.jpg</P>


</P>


This is really a non issue and it takes the media to make something out of nothing, all replays clearly show that Tuck is trying to get off the field, not trying to participate in the play, and if the Pats make the play they decline the penalty anyway, more media BS.</P>

Joe Morrison
02-24-2012, 09:38 AM
The hacks at Yahoo never cease to amaze me....whether it be that *****hat Jason Cole or Tiki Barber spewing Giants hate. The content of the actual article isdecent but the way in which the present it on the cover page is despicable....as if it was tyhe Giants strategy. Mara brought up the best point anyhow.</P>


Article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_nfl_rules_committee_buddy_ryan_patriots_giant s022212</P>


Headline: http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h127/jasonjcollins/Yahoo.jpg</P>


</P>


Non Issue, all the replays show Tuck trying to get off the field, not trying to participate in the play, only a moron would put TC's name is the same article with Buddy Ryan, total media BS like usual.</P>

Voldamort
02-24-2012, 09:42 AM
at the end of the day, we are the champs
HA HA LOL I GOT A RING!!!! It never get's old!

MikeIsaGiant
02-24-2012, 10:33 AM
The current rules are the current rules. We didn't cheat

EliTE
02-24-2012, 03:07 PM
it doesnt really make sense to have 12 guys on the field in that situation because if the defense gets an interception, sack, fumble recovery etc etc the offense can just accept the penalty and keep the ball. at first i thought we might have done it on purpose but when i thought about it, it doesn't make sense because you're essentially giving the offense a free play. the only positive that came come out of it is running time off the clock.

hungrrrry
02-24-2012, 03:44 PM
The hacks at Yahoo never cease to amaze me....whether it be that *****hat Jason Cole or Tiki Barber spewing Giants hate. The content of the actual article isdecent but the way in which the present it on the cover page is despicable....as if it was tyhe Giants strategy. Mara brought up the best point anyhow.</P>


Article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_nfl_rules_committee_buddy_ryan_patriots_giant s022212</P>


Headline: http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h127/jasonjcollins/Yahoo.jpg</P>Yeah it's bull**** but dude...I love the photo in your sig of TC and Rex as Big and Little brother....i ****ing love it!!!

freeoscar
02-24-2012, 04:03 PM
I would think putting any more than 12 or 13 men on the field, as an obvious maneuver, would backfire b/c
a) the offense would simply spike the ball and take the free 5yds. or b) it would be an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, which would be 15yds.
so you are left with putting 12 men out there, which is hardly a guarantee of an incompletion. moreso, if i were the offense, I would just throw a jump ball, tell the receiver to push off, and dare the refs to call it. worst case its offsetting. best case you have a huge reception or TD.

NYGRealityCheck
02-24-2012, 05:03 PM
I thought about that one more.....it's a defensive penalty....if the play had been succesful, the offense could have declined the penalty.* It's almost like a free play for the offense....unless you think that the reason that they play was unsuccesful was because of the extra man.

But the point of the loophole is that time comes off the clock no matter what.* Remember, this play ran the clock down to 0:05.* So why wouldn't you put 30 defenders on the field every play in this situation?


Because with 30 defenders (completely intentional and obvious) on the field and the Patriots run a play, the refs will most likely throw the flag and award the Patriots the touchdown and the game. The clock won't even matter. We would be singing a different tune.

Again...
"Under the terms of a palpably unfair act, the officials have discretion over what the penalty can be, up to and including awarding a touchdown." There are no loopholes.