What's good for the goose...

guppy wrote:... is good for the gander.

I don't mind the new "no pushing" rule being enforced. 

But, enforce it evenly and consistently to both sides.

I assume you stand in agreement with me on that principle, don't you George? 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LRJets wrote:I was looking in my picture file for the previous week when the Patriots also committed to that formation against New Orleans. 
BB didn't see it for the first time Sunday.  He used it already!!


And Baltimore used it against Miami and was not called when Miami missed a game winning FG I believe.  Otherwise, Miami would have gotten a second attempt.

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote:I was looking in my picture file for the previous week when the Patriots also committed to that formation against New Orleans. 
BB didn't see it for the first time Sunday.  He used it already!!


And Baltimore used it against Miami and was not called when Miami missed a game winning FG I believe.  Otherwise, Miami would have gotten a second attempt.

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:... is good for the gander.

I don't mind the new "no pushing" rule being enforced. 

But, enforce it evenly and consistently to both sides.

I assume you stand in agreement with me on that principle, don't you George? 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course I agree the rules should be applied evenly. As I'm sure you agree that "They did it too!" from a 61 year old man who's been caught coaching an illegal play is just about as lame as it would be from a 5 year old girl caught finger painting on the wall. Maybe more so.


No George.  The point is, BB was wrong.  But so were others too.  But that doesn't fit into your "only BB, and no one else skirts the rules" agenda.  I'm not commenting on BB at all.  I thought his response was very professional by the way.  He accepted blame, and is quickly moving on.  What I'm doing here is, I'm commenting on YOU.  I hereby charge you with the crime of being inconsistent and applying a different standard to BB than you apply to anyone else -- even in the case where BB does the same thing as someone else.  There are also other names for your anti BB stance.  Bias.  Partiality.  Predisposition.  Prejudice.  They all fit.  How do you plead to the charges?  Guilty?  Not Guilty? Or, "Guilty and Damn Proud of It"?

George1963 wrote:Calls happen. Non calls happen. It's part of the game.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm not questioning that.  Nor anything on the field.  I'm questioning your objectiveness and evenhandedness (or lack thereof) about the whole thing.  See my other post.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:Calls happen. Non calls happen. It's part of the game.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm not questioning that.  Nor anything on the field.  I'm questioning your objectiveness and evenhandedness (or lack thereof) about the whole thing.  See my other post.

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:Calls happen. Non calls happen. It's part of the game.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm not questioning that.  Nor anything on the field.  I'm questioning your objectiveness and evenhandedness (or lack thereof) about the whole thing.  See my other post.

Whatever. You asked. You want to hear my opinion on him sending a rookie who was only doing what he was coached to do out to lie to the press?

Whatever.  That's all moot.  He took the blame himself is the bottom line.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:Calls happen. Non calls happen. It's part of the game.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm not questioning that.  Nor anything on the field.  I'm questioning your objectiveness and evenhandedness (or lack thereof) about the whole thing.  See my other post.

Whatever. You asked. You want to hear my opinion on him sending a rookie who was only doing what he was coached to do out to lie to the press?

Whatever.  That's all moot.  He took the blame himself is the bottom line.

George1963 wrote:
He's a noble man. No doubt. People will write songs.


Now you just made me laugh out loud. 

Good stuff.

LRJets wrote:Now, now, Gup, your time stamp is after a statement by Belichick admitting he was wrong and his team  did commit a penalty.
Translation= the refs were justified in making that call.


It kinda brings me back to the Spygate days when Rags and Fern used the, "everyone does it" defense.


Its very frustrating to me LR when you fail to distinguish between what I'm saying, and what I'm not saying.  Maybe the problem lies with me.  Maybe I don't use the proper language, or maybe I just don't make myself clear enough so that I effectively get my point across.  Too often I attempt to make a point, and your reply goes in another direction, which to me shows that you misconstrue what I was saying.

I was pretty clear (I thought) that I was not commenting on the "rightness" or the "wrongness", or the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of calling the penalty.  Clearly was not.

What I was commenting on was, "if you're going to call it on one team, call it on the other team as well."  Either call it on both; or don't call it on both.  Either way, I don't care.  But what you can't do is, call it on one, but not the other. 

That was the beginning, middle, and end of the point that I was initially trying to get across.  Just like the old saying goes, "What's sauce for the goose, is sause for the gander."

There is no fault on the Jets here.  They did everything right. 

The fault is on the refs. 

They applied a penalty to one, but not the other........for the same thing..........in the same game.

LRJets wrote:If this new call was never called until Sunday, but has been "gotten away with" without being called, there has to be an understanding reached that it is a new call, and will now be called when rule is violated.  
No favoritism, nothing  conspiratorial or pre-ordained against any team (Patriots).  It just happened.


I'm ready to bet it'll be either over-called now, or there'll be more challenges.


I remember earlier in the game there was a non-call against the Jets for a Pats infraction even echoed by the announcers.


Chit happens and hopefully it evens out.


Very wise remarks.

Now I am going to hopefully make some as well.

Upon reflection, I realize I have already spent far too much time and energy on this subject.  Its trivial.  It means nothing.   Sometimes you get the calls, sometimes you don't.  Refs are human, not robots or computers.  Same goes for every team.  Sometimes they get them, sometimes they don't.   Sometimes when punting, the ball bounces a funny way and dies on the one yard line, and sometimes it bounces in the endzone.  You can't control that, and a lucky bounce one way or the other could mean the difference between winning and losing.  Its luck either way.  Chit happens is right.  


I must be f%cked up to carry on wiht this subject this much  - especially today.    Why today?  Because in about four hours the Red Sox are playing Game 1 of the World Series.  Get your head on straight Gup!  What the hell was I even thinking wasting time on some stupid new football rule?   Who cares?  That is messed up.  

Just a few months ago, the Boston Bruins made it to the final two and came very close before Chicago won the Cup.  Now, the Boston Red Sox are also one of the final two, and ready to try to complete an amazing "worst to first in one year" turnaround.   Its a great feeling and everyone is pumped up for it.  I'm very grateful and very fortunate to be in a position to have the opportunity for another championship after just having had such an opportunity a few short months ago.  Go Red Sox.

Oops, gotta go.  Just realized I'm all out of Sam Adams. 

LRJets wrote:
Good luck in the World Series.


Thank you much LR.  Much appreciated.



It must be nice to have one of your teams in a championship setting.


Well, I'll admit that what the Sox have done this year is one more reason that has me, as well as a lot of Bostonians, quite spoiled.  In the last 12 years beginning 2002 with the Pats first SB vs. the Rams, we have now had 12 of the major sports teams in the finals or the Superbowl.   12 Finals appearances in 12 years!!  That's pretty ridiculous.  No other city comes even close to that.  If you include semi final appearances and Conference Championship appearances in that same period, the number of our teams to make it at least to the semis is 18.  Of the 12 Finals appearances, 7 resulted in championships --- so far.  Now looking for #8 in this WS.  Let the good times roll.   

George1963 wrote: 12 Finals appearances in 12 years!!  That's pretty ridiculous.  No other city comes even close to that.


Maybe currently, but not ever. Boston still has work to do to equal LA in the 80's. One more championship and one more appearance.
And an Olympics.
Good Luck.   


Thanks George.

You're right about LA in the 80s.  But I'll say that if Boston wins this current baseball championship - that's right "if" -- then this current Boston era will tie L.A. of the 80s in championships and appearances.  BUT, we will give the EDGE to Boston because its success was more widespread, achieved across 4 sports, while LA's was achieved across only 3 (no hockey).  LOL.