SB Nation User Blog: Bleed-Black&Gold

We Meet Again (and again)

Bleed-Black&Gold — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:04:22 -0000

For the third time we will be playing your Baltimore Ravens and hosting you guys for the second time. Both games were classic and we should be in for another treat come next Sunday.

Over the curent year I went from hating you guys, to feeling sorry for you guys, to hating you guys, to rooting for you guys, and I am back to hating you guys. BUT I will say I have grown some respect for you guys in this course.

BUT having said that, I have got to like our chances as that you will carry your rookie QB into TRUE hostile conditions. That LP Field is hardly hostile compared to the snowy frigid conditions Flacco will have to perform in at Heinz Field next Sunday. Throw in some injuries on some key players that I saw on Saturday and you guys might be in trouble. Any word on McClain, Suggs, and Reed? I heard they were all pretty hurt. Oh and I think an offensive lineman was hurt too?

But its tough beating a team three times and I know you and your team are fired up to get one last crack at us, probably to try and kill as many as players on our team as possible even if you can't win. But hey that's how these games go! I am happy it comes down to the AFC North to show the AFC how to play physical football, the way it is meant to be played!

Good Luck! and break a leg (one of your own, literally)!

P.S. Thanks for taking out the ten-teeth ignorant titans, even our worst enemy (you) have never sunk low enough to stomp on a (fake) terrible towel (at least during the game), and i appluad you guys on having the class not to and give thanks to you for knocking those punks out.

P.S.S. People claim Flacco is not a rookie anymore but he still is. Yeah he has played 18 games but look at BR performance in the AFC championship game and how he performed in the reg. season. But who knows maybe he can make history again? Not.

Who Do YOU hate? (chargers?)

Bleed-Black&Gold — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:30:12 -0000

Sorry to be a little off topic from the upcoming game against the Chargers but I was just wondering what everyone's hate list is looking like right now. Does anyone have the chargers on their list? Right now this is my list:

Baltimore
Dallas
New England
Tennessee (you all should know why)
Jacksonville
Cleveland
Cincinatti (only because of 05)

Now I know I am leaving off some notables and some old classic rivals aren't as high but i just started watching the steelers in 95 so i'm not that old school guy. BUT i see that we are 0-2 against the chargers in the postseason......is that enough to be put on a hate list somewhere?

The disputable touchdown (part 2)

Bleed-Black&Gold — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:37:58 -0000

Sorry guys to keep talking about this touchdown but I just thought I would make this post to try and clear some things up. I know we need to focus on Tennessee now and that we still could have won the game even if the touchdown was overturned but I thought this would be a good post to clarify some of the ruling's that was made before the head official takes all the glory away from my hard work.

Now the official rulebook does not get too specific, it just says when a player is in bounds and catches the ball in possession while behind the opponents goal line. that it is deemed a touchdown. Now it does not get specific and say the ball does not have to cross the plane but it does not get specific and say it does either.

So in this case you must not assume that because the rule for a runner advancing the ball has to cross the goal line that the same rule applies.

Here is what the official rulebook says about scoring:

Section 2 Touchdown
Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):
(a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane); or
(b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above,
or behind the opponents’ goal line.
(2) The Referee may award a touchdown when a palpably unfair act deprives the
offended team of one.
(3) For a foul after a touchdown (between downs), see 3-11-2-a and 14-5.

There is a reason why they separated the whole a vs. b matter is that they are showing that you can score in different ways, either a catch for a touchdown or advancing the ball for a touchdown.

These two different ways of scoring have two different rulings on what constitutes a score.

In section 2 article 1 it states that while inbounds any player catches the ball on or behind the
opponents’ goal line is a touchdown.

Now the subject at hand is the player because there is an action that the subject does, catches. So since the player is the subject at matter, the predicate is on or behind the opponents’ goal line. Since the ball is not the subject the predicate does not apply to the ball but instead the subject which is the player. The ball cannot be the subject because the player is doing something to the ball (catching, the verb)

Ask who or what the sentence is about.

Find the main person or thing in the sentence.

The subject is usually a noun (a person, place or thing) or pronoun (words like he, she or they that take the place of a noun).

The subject is usually at the beginning of a sentence, before the verb.

There may be more than one subject in a sentence.

The subject can never be the object of a preposition, words like with, from, under, over, and of.

They made it a point to specify what the ball has to do in part a because the ball in its sentence was a subject. when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane);

there is a reason why they specified in this situation and not the b situation. That is because it does not matter where the ball is in the b scenario, as long as while inbounds any player catches the ball on or behind the opponents’ goal line.

Now the rule book is very particular in its meaning and will specify what it means in all situations so nobody is left to assume anything, therefore you cannot assume that rule a is still in effect onto rule b because the rule book would say it is. The rule book does not state that the ball must cross the plane if the player is in bounds and catches the ball with possession in the end zone so therefore the ball does not have to cross the plane if the ball is caught by a player who is in bounds and in the end zone.

If the ball needed to break the plane in order for the touchdown to count,

1. the rulebook would state so in the event of a catch but it didn't. It could have easily done the same as rule a, and say (b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line; and the ball touches or crosses the opponents' goal line at some point during the possession of the receiver. But it didn't. There is no room for assumption as then that would defeat the purpose of the rulebook, and lead to a reforming of the rule book (which may happen if somehow the NFL apologizes and say that they got the call wrong).

2. the head official at the game would have stated that the ball broke the plane and it was a touchdown. He did not mention the ball breaking the plane at all but explained that Santonio got two feet in the end zone, with possession of the ball all the way through his fall. So ball crossing the plane is obviously not a factor.

3. Mike Pereira has confirmed from a source, an ESPN NFL analyst, has confirmed that the right call was made and that it was indeed a touchdown and will explain in Wednesday's edition of NFL Official Review.

Also when people think of indisputable evidence, they automatically assume that means that if you ask 20 people that most if not all of them will agree with you. In this case that is not what it means as it means that there is no question, in the mind of the head referee's view and opinion that there is evidence that suggests against the call on the field. The referee isn't thinking what other people will think but thinks to himself if it is indisputable evidence to show that they call on the field was wrong, and he obviously thinks there was indisputable evidence as he still backed up his decision later in an interview with ESPN. I am amazed that all of these commentators and analysts fail to see this rule but I guess it is the same as the tuck rule in that, nobody really looked into the rule until a situation happens like this. So as much as I hate the patriots, the right call was made in that dreadful playoff game vs. Oakland. and I really hate NE.

Some of you guys (steelguy) will probably disagree but this is my take on the whole matter and appears to be Mike Pereira's take also. I may be wrong but so far what I have found in the official rulebook has made sense and cleared things up for myself and hopefully will clear things up for you.

Sources used:

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/2006%20NFL%20RULEBOOK.pdf

http://www.harpercollege.edu/writ_ctr/ident_sv.htm

#2 vs. #1

Bleed-Black&Gold — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:06:34 -0000

This is my first post so sorry if it is not very 'authentic' but I am in a little bit of hurry as I would like some sleep tonight but I can't stop rejoicing on today's win. But a question still remains in my head.

Which one is better? #1 or #2 seed?

If you look at past statistics, the #1 seed in the AFC rarely wins the SB if they even GET there. Only twice since 1990 has the top seeds won the superbowl. 1998 Broncos and 2003 patiots. Since then only 7/18 of the top seeds gotten past the 1st game, the divisional round.

We all know that the Steelers recently have never reached the Superbowl holding the #1 seed failing numerous times in our own backyard, no need to visualize those horrifying years.

BUT this has been a year of ending streaks AND we are in a new era, the Mike Tomlin era.

SO do we want the #1 seed and take the challenge of winning it all with a bullseye on our back, OR try to get the #2 seed and take care of business without worrying about history against us?

What do YOU think?

(of course i am not insuating that we should try to lose to Tennessee next week, just seeing what you guys think which seed is better or if it matters)