19-0?

Woof Woof

[www.amazon.com]

Let's Go Giants

Looks like they took the book down. I had heard about it this morning on the radio however.

Go Big Blue!

There is or was a comparable book relating to the Giants on Amazon as well.

Josh '99
There is or was a comparable book relating to the Giants on Amazon as well.

14-6: Mediocrity as Destiny

Josh '99
There is or was a comparable book relating to the Giants on Amazon as well.

Shhhhh....

The funny thing is that the outlet that first made The Boston Globe's book-on-amazon into a story, The Boston Herald, also had a book listed on amazon.

[www.bostonherald.com]
[www.boston.com]

Oh, that sports media...

This is why Hype Week for the Super Bowl is Super Stupid. Retarded "news" like this finds ways to dominate the papers and espn talking-heads for 6 days. Hey, I heard Tom Brady sneezed. Let's talk about it for 802 hours.

I saw some ball caps in a convenience store just south of Burlington (VT) with the Pats logo and 19-0. I don't know who the heck was already distributing them, but I don't think the owner or manager of the store was too bright to put them out either.

cth95
I saw some ball caps in a convenience store just south of Burlington (VT) with the Pats logo and 19-0. I don't know who the heck was already distributing them, but I don't think the owner or manager of the store was too bright to put them out either.

I don't know what's weirder about this statement. Is it the fact that you're faulting a merchant for not doing enough to satisfy a team's fans? Or is it that you're calling him stupid for not behaving irrationally superstitious?

Jacob 03

cth95
I saw some ball caps in a convenience store just south of Burlington (VT) with the Pats logo and 19-0. I don't know who the heck was already distributing them, but I don't think the owner or manager of the store was too bright to put them out either.

I don't know what's weirder about this statement. Is it the fact that you're faulting a merchant for not doing enough to satisfy a team's fans? Or is it that you're calling him stupid for not behaving irrationally superstitious?

The woofing gods aside, I suspect that the NFL wouldn't authorize sales of such merchandise before the game. So assuming these are official products they shouldn't be on sale yet. Of course, if they're illegal then all bets are off. May the woofing gods strike!

KeithK
The woofing gods aside, I suspect that the NFL wouldn't authorize sales of such merchandise before the game. So assuming these are official products they shouldn't be on sale yet. Of course, if they're illegal then all bets are off. May the woofing gods strike!

I suspect an unlicensed product sold for a week in Burlington doesn't register a blip on the NFL's radar.

In fact, I'm not even sure the downside of potential embarassment from the sale of premature items outweighs the money to be gained from licsening them. The NFL may hold off on the 19-0 commercials until the fourth quarter, but I suspect it doesn't mind too much if the stuff gets sold under the table a bit early.

Jacob 03

KeithK
The woofing gods aside, I suspect that the NFL wouldn't authorize sales of such merchandise before the game. So assuming these are official products they shouldn't be on sale yet. Of course, if they're illegal then all bets are off. May the woofing gods strike!

I suspect an unlicensed product sold for a week in Burlington doesn't register a blip on the NFL's radar.

In fact, I'm not even sure the downside of potential embarassment from the sale of premature items outweighs the money to be gained from licsening them. The NFL may hold off on the 19-0 commercials until the fourth quarter, but I suspect it doesn't mind too much if the stuff gets sold under the table a bit early.

I would suspect that you are very, very wrong. The NFL polices their licenses with more vigor than Kim Jong Il.

ugarte
I would suspect that you are very, very wrong. The NFL polices their licenses with more vigor than Kim Jong Il.

You are correct, sir.

NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl
[www.washingtonpost.com]

ugarte
I would suspect that you are very, very wrong. The NFL polices their licenses with more vigor than Kim Jong Il.

And with good reason: the NFL is probably worth a lot more than North Korea!

To complete the circle of woofing, in a Marshalls in Watchung, NJ there was a rack of t-shirt that said "18 wins and ONE GIANT LOSS... sorry, Patriots, better luck next year".

BCrespi
Woof Woof

[www.amazon.com]

Let's Go Giants

To the Boston Globe staff: It's all your fault! It's all your fault!

Yes, the woofing gods do exist .

Congrats to the Giants!!!! Yeah!!

Terry Bradshaw sounds like I did after a weekend in Greenbay.

WOO WOO WOOOOT!

In the immortal words of Lee Corso: Not so fast, my friend.

Though I grew up a baseball fan first (football and hockey 2 and 2A) there is nothing that gets me jazzed like a huge Giants or Cornell hockey win. I'm glad I could post about this here, b/c it's by far the two teams I get most emotionally invested in from game-to-game. I guess it probably has to do mostly with 162 Yankee games and 82 Ranger games, but no matter.

What a freakin' game! Yeah Big Blue!

BCrespi
Though I grew up a baseball fan first (football and hockey 2 and 2A) there is nothing that gets me jazzed like a huge Giants or Cornell hockey win. I'm glad I could post about this here, b/c it's by far the two teams I get most emotionally invested in from game-to-game. I guess it probably has to do mostly with 162 Yankee games and 82 Ranger games, but no matter.

What a freakin' game! Yeah Big Blue!

It was a great game! And I was already headed to bed, jazzed about the Giants' victory, when a friend called me from where I'd watched the first half (I came home for the second because I had to be up early today), and told me I'd won a not inconsiderable amount of money with my box matching the final score.

Not a bad way to start the week.

A fun "morning after" excersize for those of us who aren't stinging today is to Froogle "Patriots XLII Champions"

[www.google.com]

All the links to Dick's Sporting Goods give you an unfriendly ref whistling you for interference. Shop.com still has product pages up.

RichH
A fun "morning after" excersize for those of us who aren't stinging today is to Froogle "Patriots XLII Champions"

[www.google.com]

All the links to Dick's Sporting Goods give you an unfriendly ref whistling you for interference. Shop.com still has product pages up.

Some village in Africa is going to be boasting about the greatest undefeated team in the history of football.

Always a fun read, my buddy Reid's "Super Bowl Timeline":

[www.reidaboutit.com]

An outstanding (albeit imaginary) dialogue between Buck & Aikman on the "too many men" call in football vs. hockey:

[crookedtimber.org]

I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too. What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it? They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game. I like hockey's looser interpretation of "playing the puck" for interference. But then, football's style of ruling is I guess what you have to deal with when you have a sport in which offense and defense are artificially separated.

Anyway, as hard as the Pats' loss was for me, I have to agree that Belichick's challenge on that too-many-men call was kinda dick.

ftyuv
I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too. What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it? They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.

Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

ugarte

ftyuv
I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too. What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it? They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.

Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either. To me, that's akin to "fighting for the puck" in a way that you're not really trying to get possession, but rather trying to keep possession from the opponent and force the puck up against the boards (which is legal in hockey). But as I said, I recognize that in a game like football, where you have artificial offense-time and defense-time, a stalemate amounts to a victory for the defense, which wouldn't be good for the game.

But as I said, I recognize that in a game like football, where you have artificial offense-time and defense-time, a stalemate amounts to a victory for the defense, which wouldn't be good for the game.

By which you mean that it makes the game less exciting by making the forward pass less effective, right? I agree with that assessment, but it is still a contrived rule. It makes me think less of football as a well-structured game, similar to the way "injuries" ruin soccer and intentional personal fouls ruin the final minutes of a basketball game.

The fact that these strategies can exist in the first place demonstrates to me that the game itself has a fundamental problem, and papering over it with judgment calls by referees seems like the wrong solution.

(It's likely that most sports have these problems. In baseball, we have the infield fly rule. In that case, though, I ask: what's the problem? Why shouldn't infield fly balls result in double plays and/or pickle plays?)

Kyle

krose

But as I said, I recognize that in a game like football, where you have artificial offense-time and defense-time, a stalemate amounts to a victory for the defense, which wouldn't be good for the game.

By which you mean that it makes the game less exciting by making the forward pass less effective, right? I agree with that assessment, but it is still a contrived rule.
Kyle

Most, or at least many, of the rules we deal with in sports, and life, are contrived. There are contrived reasons for icing and offsides in our sport. Without them the game would not be to my, and I'd guess to say most fans, liking. Rules for games always change to keep the game interesting. For shame, there is a new discussion about eliminating lacrosse face-offs, and putting in a time clock. I personally like the idea, you may not, but putting it or someone down because it's contrived, well let's just say, again we agree to disagree.

Jim Hyla
Most, or at least many, of the rules we deal with in sports, and life, are contrived. There are contrived reasons for icing and offsides in our sport.

I actually disagree with this assessment. They are very well-defined rules (the "could have gotten it" excuse for calling off icing notwithstanding) that don't involve ref judgment. It's the judgment call that I really take issue with, not the additional restriction.

Kyle

fytuv

ugarte
I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.

If you flail wildly and hit the ball, they aren't going to flag you for interference - but if you don't hit the ball and do crash into the player without even bothering to look for the ball, you might as well have just tackled him before the pass was thrown.

krose

Jim Hyla
Most, or at least many, of the rules we deal with in sports, and life, are contrived. There are contrived reasons for icing and offsides in our sport.

I actually disagree with this assessment. They are very well-defined rules (the "could have gotten it" excuse for calling off icing notwithstanding) that don't involve ref judgment. It's the judgment call that I really take issue with, not the additional restriction.

Kyle

Not surprised that you disagree. My point is that most rules in sports are contrived. Here's a definition from The Free Dictionary.

Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural

I think most things like offsides and icing fall into that category. The difference is in degree and the eye of the beholder. We are just different beholders.

ftyuv

Anyway, as hard as the Pats' loss was for me, I have to agree that Belichick's challenge on that too-many-men call was kinda dick.

I thought it was one of the few times he and his staff did something right.

Nothing dick at all about challenging there.

ugarte

fytuv

ugarte
I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.

If you flail wildly and hit the ball, they aren't going to flag you for interference - but if you don't hit the ball and do crash into the player without even bothering to look for the ball, you might as well have just tackled him before the pass was thrown.

Except that if you tackle him before the pass is thrown it's illegal contact or holding (5 yards) not pass interference (spot foul).

Chris '03

ugarte

fytuv

ugarte
I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.

If you flail wildly and hit the ball, they aren't going to flag you for interference - but if you don't hit the ball and do crash into the player without even bothering to look for the ball, you might as well have just tackled him before the pass was thrown.

Except that if you tackle him before the pass is thrown it's illegal contact or holding (5 yards) not pass interference (spot foul).

True, as far as my poorly worded analogy goes, but the distinction in the penalties makes sense. If the CB tackles the WR before the ball is in the air, the ref has no grounds to determine that the play was going to go towards that player, or that the quarterback could get it to him even if it was. The penalty is designed to prevent general route disruption. PI is a spot foul because the action has advanced far enough to determine the extent of the offense by the defender. Sometimes the penalty is a windfall, sometimes - when a defender interferes with a receiver that might have had room to run after the catch - it isn't harsh enough.

I prefer to complain about behind-the-returner spot-of-the-foul penalties on kick returns.

ugarte

ftyuv
I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too. What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it? They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.

Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Of course, as you point out, face guarding is legal, but that isn't a play at the ball but rather an attempt to disrupt the receiver from catching the ball as well.

Josh '99

ugarte

ftyuv
I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too. What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it? They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.

Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Of course, as you point out, face guarding is legal, but that isn't a play at the ball but rather an attempt to disrupt the receiver from catching the ball as well.

The NFL draws the line at contact, reasonably IMO, in much the same way that you can screen the goalie but not bump him.

ugarte

Josh '99

ugarte

ftyuv
I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too. What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it? They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.

Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

Of course, as you point out, face guarding is legal, but that isn't a play at the ball but rather an attempt to disrupt the receiver from catching the ball as well.

The NFL draws the line at contact, reasonably IMO, in much the same way that you can screen the goalie but not bump him.

Makes sense to me - I'm not saying it's a bad rule, I'm just saying that there's definitely a line between certain TYPES of "disrupting the receiver".

For those who never got to see the Amazon listing before it came down:

[www.flickr.com]

[www.theonion.com]