Miscellaneous Sports Stuff

[MHSL82]

Grantland does like to post off the wall posts. In regards to the Alex Smith - Colin Kaepernick situation in San Francisco, they suggested a QB closer, like in baseball, where one QB would finish games. I presume that would be Alex, because Kaepernick will just pitch it to the other team when nursing a one-score lead. Just kidding, that was the coaches' fault for calling that play.

 

[nuraman00]

I presume that would be Alex, because Kaepernick will just pitch it to the other team when nursing a one-score lead.

Lol.

Why has the term "pitch" been used, instead of throw?

You're not the first person to use that term, I've been hearing that play described as pitch. (I haven't seen the play yet, just heard about it).

 

[MHSL82]

Lol.

Why has the term "pitch" been used, instead of throw?

You're not the first person to use that term, I've been hearing that play described as pitch. (I haven't seen the play yet, just heard about it).

When a pass is thrown laterally, backwards, underhanded, flipped, etc., it can be described as a pitch - because it's not really thrown like a traditional pass. Football's my second most watched sport, so it sounds natural to me. The play just looks like a pitch, a bad one at that. Not a very good quality video, but here's the play:


All the Niners had to do was to run the ball, pass the ball forward (complete or incomplete so long as not intercepted), not fumble, punt the ball, execute the pitch well, fall on the ball when fumbled, or heck, even kneel and punt on 4th down, and they would likely win the game - or at worst go into OT. Instead, they called that play and poorly executed it. It was a hard ball to pitch, but it was worse than I would have guessed pre-snap (if I had known the play). The reciever (#19) should have just fallen on the ball instead of trying to pick it up, the coaches shouldn't have called it, Kaepernick should have pitched it better, and Moss should have blocked the guy that eventually recovered the ball better. So much went wrong on that play.

I have the game recorded on my DVR and they show Alex before the play look on his wristband to see the play called, he looks like "why are you calling this play?" (He's a risk adverse Qb, but also pretty smart.) Then, afterwards they show him, he looks like "how (what or why) the f did that happen?" I'm glad he didn't look happy, that would been classless. If I were not a Niner fan, that would have been funny.

 

[nuraman00]

Thanks.

Is the video from the end part of the same game? Why does the quality and turf look greener?

How much time was on the clock? Probably the easiest thing would have been to throw the ball out of bounds, to use up clock, right?

It didn't look like a bad idea, because # 19 was open. But once the throw was too high, and he went after the ball, you are right, he should have fallen on the ball.

Can a non-kicker/punter kick the ball? What happens if he does? So when # 19 went after the ball, could he have just kicked it in some random direction (maybe out of bounds)?

 

[MHSL82]

I will probably explain much more than I need to, so please don't take this as an insult to your knowledge of football. I just tend to give descriptive explanations.

Is the video from the end part of the same game? Why does the quality and turf look greener?

The video is from the end of the loss to the Rams and the video was probably someone recording his television, as opposed to digital feed on his computer. Depending on the settings, colors will look different, but always the quality is poorer.

How much time was on the clock? Probably the easiest thing would have been to throw the ball out of bounds, to use up clock, right?

There was 3:04 left at the end of the play (3:11 at the snap). Throwing it out of bounds stops the clock (where as throwing in-field, lets the clock run down) and when you throw it away from where he threw it, you have to have a reciever in the area of the throw. Otherwise, it's a penalty for intentionally throwing (grounding) it away. The reason for intentional grounding rule is because the defense is doing well if they can sack you, if all you had to do was throw it out of bounds, everyone would do it and the defense would be at a disadvantage. It rewards a defense for good play, but if there's a reciever in the area of the throw, then the QB did attempt a legitimate pass, and therefore penalty would be unwarranted). If you leave the pocket (middle of the field), you just need to throw it beyond the line of scrimmage where the play started. So throwing it away is best, but a bit difficult depending on the play and the pressure.

The refs incorrectly called Kaepernick for intentional grounding earlier in the game because they said the ball didn't pass the line of scrimmage, when it in fact, did. It's not a play that the refs can review because it's a penalty, not a ruling on the field, like say a catch or no catch. Since the pass was in the endzone, the Rams were given 2 points for a safety, because in an intentional grounding situation, you are assumed down at the point of release.

Can a non-kicker/punter kick the ball? What happens if he does? So when # 19 went after the ball, could he have just kicked it in some random direction (maybe out of bounds)?

If #19 kicked the ball out of bounds, with no intention to recover it, it would have been a penalty (half the distance to the goal) - which would have been well worth it. The Niners would be kicking from the endzone (risky) and the Rams would be closer to their goal, but there'd be no touchdown. If #19 kicked it out of the endzone, it would be 2 points for the Rams (safety) and the Niners would have to kick it to the Rams (assuming no trickery). It would be 10-4 with the Rams probably around the 20 yard line, with 80 yards to go in three minutes. They hadn't gone that far all game, so it would have been difficult to do against the Niners great defense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many little things could have happened differently for the Niners to win. It was a perfect storm type of thing. The next possession, the Niners scored a field goal, before the Rams did, too. But there was one pass the reciever should have caught that would have been a TD for SF. Instead, the clock that they were trying to run out stopped. Then, the QB ran out of bounds, again stopping the clock. If the Niners ran the ball instead of the dropped pass, that would be 40 seconds off the clock (or the Rams would have to take their last timeout). Running out of bounds stopped the clock too - not doing so would have run 40 more seconds off the clock (or force the last timeout). The Rams needed that timeout in order to maximize their time to score the tying field goal. The Niners defense also had a semi-bogus unnecessary roughness penalty (bogus as in they didn't hit the helmet, but semi because it was a judgment call on whether it was late) - that made the fireld goal close enough for their rookie field goal kicker to tie the game.

 

[nuraman00]

I will probably explain much more than I need to, so please don't take this as an insult to your knowledge of football. I just tend to give descriptive explanations.

The video is from the end of the loss to the Rams and the video was probably someone recording his television, as opposed to digital feed on his computer. Depending on the settings, colors will look different, but always the quality is poorer.

There was 3:04 left at the end of the play (3:11 at the snap). Throwing it out of bounds stops the clock (where as throwing in-field, lets the clock run down) and when you throw it away from where he threw it, you have to have a reciever in the area of the throw. Otherwise, it's a penalty for intentionally throwing (grounding) it away. The reason for intentional grounding rule is because the defense is doing well if they can sack you, if all you had to do was throw it out of bounds, everyone would do it and the defense would be at a disadvantage. It rewards a defense for good play, but if there's a reciever in the area of the throw, then the QB did attempt a legitimate pass, and therefore penalty would be unwarranted). If you leave the pocket (middle of the field), you just need to throw it beyond the line of scrimmage where the play started. So throwing it away is best, but a bit difficult depending on the play and the pressure.

The refs incorrectly called Kaepernick for intentional grounding earlier in the game because they said the ball didn't pass the line of scrimmage, when it in fact, did. It's not a play that the refs can review because it's a penalty, not a ruling on the field, like say a catch or no catch. Since the pass was in the endzone, the Rams were given 2 points for a safety, because in an intentional grounding situation, you are assumed down at the point of release.

If #19 kicked the ball out of bounds, with no intention to recover it, it would have been a penalty (half the distance to the goal) - which would have been well worth it. The Niners would be kicking from the endzone (risky) and the Rams would be closer to their goal, but there'd be no touchdown. If #19 kicked it out of the endzone, it would be 2 points for the Rams (safety) and the Niners would have to kick it to the Rams (assuming no trickery). It would be 10-4 with the Rams probably around the 20 yard line, with 80 yards to go in three minutes. They hadn't gone that far all game, so it would have been difficult to do against the Niners great defense.

Many little things could have happened differently for the Niners to win. It was a perfect storm type of thing. The next possession, the Niners scored a field goal, before the Rams did, too. But there was one pass the reciever should have caught that would have been a TD for SF. Instead, the clock that they were trying to run out stopped. Then, the QB ran out of bounds, again stopping the clock. If the Niners ran the ball instead of the dropped pass, that would be 40 seconds off the clock (or the Rams would have to take their last timeout). Running out of bounds stopped the clock too - not doing so would have run 40 more seconds off the clock (or force the last timeout). The Rams needed that timeout in order to maximize their time to score the tying field goal. The Niners defense also had a semi-bogus unnecessary roughness penalty (bogus as in they didn't hit the helmet, but semi because it was a judgment call on whether it was late) - that made the fireld goal close enough for their rookie field goal kicker to tie the game.

Thanks, I didn't know those things.

Back to the video though, don't the colors look a lot different in the first 8 seconds, and from 9 seconds to 14 seconds? It's almost as if it's not from the same game.

 

[MHSL82]

Thanks, I didn't know those things.

Back to the video though, don't the colors look a lot different in the first 8 seconds, and from 9 seconds to 14 seconds? It's almost as if it's not from the same game.

Ohhh... the play at the end that they don't show the whole thing, the second was from the Bears game (at home, Rams on the road), I didn't watch that because it was a different play. I thought you were asking if the video was from the same game as the pitch play I was referring to. I was confused, I thought "that is the same play, so of course, that's the same game."

 

[nuraman00]

Ohhh... the play at the end that they don't show the whole thing, the second was from the Bears game (at home, Rams on the road), I didn't watch that because it was a different play. I thought you were asking if the video was from the same game as the pitch play I was referring to. I was confused, I thought "that is the same play, so of course, that's the same game."

Thanks.

Good use of quotes too.

 

[MHSL82]

Strange but true feats of the 2012 MLB season

 

[nuraman00]

Strange but true feats of the 2012 MLB season

I haven't read the 2012 one yet, but they had one for 2011. It was great.

Thanks for posting.

EDIT:

Nevermind, this isn't the article I was thinking of. The article I was thinking of was about the regular season. Let me see if I can find it.

Strange but true feats of the year -- postseason edition - ESPN

 

[nuraman00]

Ok this might be it from last year but I'm not sure anymore.

Strange but true feats of the year -- regular season edition - ESPN

 

[nuraman00]

USC shows up an hour late for bowl dinner, Trojans player cusses El Paso ? very classy, USC | Dr. Saturday - Yahoo! Sports




USC shows up an hour late for bowl dinner, Trojans player cusses El Paso … very classy, USC

By Frank Schwab | Dr. Saturday – 6 hours ago

Email
Recommend
Tweet

(USA Today Sports Images)

At every bowl game, there are events for each team to attend. The committees that put on the bowls normally bend over backwards for the teams, to ensure they have a great bowl experience. The people responsible for the bowls work tremendously hard at planning executing such things. That's not always easy with more a couple hundred people traveling with the teams.

And, one of the few requirements of the teams is that they show up. USC apparently believes it is too good to follow this one requirement.

Last night, Duke Keith of the El Paso Times tweeted that USC was an hour late for the Sheriff's Posse Dinner, so Georgia Tech coach Paul Johnson took his team and left. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the obvious, that the Yellow Jackets were apparently not pleased at the snub. The AJC and Los Angeles Daily News reported that the Trojans were actually 90 minutes late for the dinner.

No matter whether it was an hour or 90 minutes, let's all agree that either amount of time makes the Trojans football team look like classless jerks.



If you wish to believe this was one isolated incident, how about another story from what's turning out to be a marvelous bowl week for USC's reputation. ElPaso411.com captured a tweet from USC defensive lineman Leonard Williams saying, "Out here in El Paso. (S***ty) city but glad I can enjoy this moment wit the USC family." That tweet has been deleted from Williams' account, and on his timeline he admits he took it down with a long list of apologies.

Yes, when Williams called El Paso a (expletive) city, he really meant that he was so grateful to be in the Sun Bowl. Common mix-up.

Here's the thing - this isn't even the first time a USC player has had to backtrack after ripping El Paso leading up to the game. Earlier this month linebacker Tony Burnett had to apologize after disparaging Georgia Tech and the city of El Paso.

Congratulations, USC. You are coming off as the most unlikeable team in college football.

Back to last night's bowl dinner for a second. This is what the Los Angeles Times reported, explaining the absence.

A USC athletic department spokesman said the Trojans' tardiness was because of their late arrival at the airport, which pushed back the start of practice and their return to the team hotel before they departed for the dinner. The spokesman said USC apprised bowl officials of its delays.

(UPDATE: Here is the explanation from USCFootball.com on the dinner faux pas: The Trojans said they were only a half hour late, bowl officials knew the whole time, Georgia Tech actually left 75 minutes before it was supposed to, and therefore USC deserves no blame. "It wasn't a problem for anybody," USC Sports Information Director Tim Tessalone said Thursday to the site. "No one was upset.")

Sorry, doesn't matter. There are responsibilities beyond practicing that fade route for the 20th time. Many bowl officials went through a lot to put on that dinner. The city and community takes pride in putting on this bowl game. There was another team waiting for an hour or more that you completely disrespected by not showing up. Flat out, USC coach Lane Kiffin needs to get his team to that dinner on time. And have his players stop blasting the city. Apparently Kiffin doesn't get how poorly this all reflects on him.

If USC is so upset about the Sun Bowl, here's a couple possible solutions. How about winning more games? Had the Trojans not been the most underachieving team in college football this year, maybe they would have been in a bowl they thought wasn't beneath them - one they also probably would have disrespected anyway. Or here's another option: don't go. Turn down the invitation if it's that terrible of a destination for your unranked five-loss team. Let Louisiana Tech go to the game. They probably would have appreciated it and not left a trail of upset people in El Paso by acting like the most entitled 7-5 team in college football history.

So here's a gameplan for Kiffin and the Trojans the rest of the way: Show up on time to all the events that were put on for you. Don't disrespect the bowl officials. Stop disrespecting Georgia Tech, too. Quit acting like your team that was barely over .500 this season deserves to be in a better destination, because it doesn't. And, if you could, quit calling El Paso (expletive).

At very least, follow a general rule: quit embarrassing USC. It deserves better on and off the field from you.

 

[MHSL82]

49ers vs Cardinals 2012 Away - Alex Smith Drive on Vimeo

As a human being, that moment was a good one and felt right. I thought coming off the field happy was something we should all want for any athlete like Alex. Why not have the guy who has gave-it-all, stayed classy, and is a good person leave on a positive note?

Some will say he's just doing his job, but as a person he's a great guy. See how Brady Quinn acted after Tebow left, like an ass-clown on why he should have been starting. Look how Leinart wasn't ready to perform when Palmer went down, when Alex was prepared when Hill was benched. Look at Troy Smith who wouldn't even spend a bye week after his first start with the team, and Alex as a backup staying during the bye to help Crabtree when he wasn't even starting. There are numerous examples from Camp Alex with no contract and how he handled Kaep coming in, getting reps, and then, the benching.

Football had nothing to do with the ovation and respect, so in that sense, it did feel right.

 

[MHSL82]

1st time since 1996 that no one was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

 

[MHSL82]

What do you guys think about steroids and the Hall of Fame? What about those already in that are guilty of having other substances that boosted their numbers? What if those substances were legal at the time of taking them? What about those who are in, took them, and were never caught?

 

[nuraman00]

What do you guys think about steroids and the Hall of Fame? What about those already in that are guilty of having other substances that boosted their numbers? What if those substances were legal at the time of taking them? What about those who are in, took them, and were never caught?

Just pick good players.

 

[MHSL82]

Just pick good players.

Other than your "Thanks" posts, this must be one of your shortest responses to a question that could have a lot of words.

I don't know how to do this, but I think I'd choose players that I thought were so good that they would make it even without the steroids (if I knew they took them). Because, as they say, the steroids don't swing the bat (even though it does make the swing faster and stronger). Just like how guns don't kill people, people kill people... the guns help - Chris Rock. Steroids are not going to make someone who can't play baseball play baseball at HOF worthy levels. They might make above average guys produce HOF-worthy numbers.

I'm not big on baseball, but I do dismiss theories of "everyone does it," "the voters are hypocritical to cheer them on despite 'knowing' the steroids were there and then act moral when it comes to voting," the "other guys who took steroids are already in the Hall," "steroids aren't the only PED, Hank Aaron took greenies (form of amphetamine)," "they're going to eventually get in," or the "we aren't voting for who are angels (bad people if they are good at baseball get in)." The reason I don't like the last one is because steroids is wrong for two ways - it's cheating and it screws with the numbers - a factor for HOF inductance.

But if someone were good enough, if the voter's opinion, that they'd be there anyway, then yeah. That's hard to determine, but let the voters determine that under their own metric in their mind. Some careers are changed by a few more HRs, some players win and help their legacy due to those few added HRs, and if those few added HRs are added due to stronger and faster arms based upon steroids, then that makes it harder to justify - but how do you know? That's why I initially thought, if you took steroids, you're out. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have taken steroids. If you needed to take the steroids to get there, you don't deserve being there. But if you were good enough anyway, why take it, but if you did, I could see someone still putting you in.

 

[MHSL82]

Rolando McClain arrested again

The Raiders ultimately didn’t cut linebacker Rolando McClain during the 2012 season. That could be changing in 2013.

McClain was arrested in Alabama on Tuesday, according to WHNT-TV. After being pulled over for a window-tint violation, McClain gave the arresting officer a false name of Fuck Y'All.

Last year, gun charges against McClain were dropped when the alleged victim decided not to proceed with the case. McClain separately was suspended two games for conduct detrimental to the team.

The latest charges aren’t nearly as serious, but the fact that McClain has now faced two off-field issues will surely attract the NFL’s attention.

 

[nuraman00]

Other than your "Thanks" posts, this must be one of your shortest responses to a question that could have a lot of words.

I don't know how to do this, but I think I'd choose players that I thought were so good that they would make it even without the steroids (if I knew they took them). Because, as they say, the steroids don't swing the bat (even though it does make the swing faster and stronger). Just like how guns don't kill people, people kill people... the guns help - Chris Rock. Steroids are not going to make someone who can't play baseball play baseball at HOF worthy levels. They might make above average guys produce HOF-worthy numbers.

I'm not big on baseball, but I do dismiss theories of "everyone does it," "the voters are hypocritical to cheer them on despite 'knowing' the steroids were there and then act moral when it comes to voting," the "other guys who took steroids are already in the Hall," "steroids aren't the only PED, Hank Aaron took greenies (form of amphetamine)," "they're going to eventually get in," or the "we aren't voting for who are angels (bad people if they are good at baseball get in)." The reason I don't like the last one is because steroids is wrong for two ways - it's cheating and it screws with the numbers - a factor for HOF inductance.

But if someone were good enough, if the voter's opinion, that they'd be there anyway, then yeah. That's hard to determine, but let the voters determine that under their own metric in their mind. Some careers are changed by a few more HRs, some players win and help their legacy due to those few added HRs, and if those few added HRs are added due to stronger and faster arms based upon steroids, then that makes it harder to justify - but how do you know? That's why I initially thought, if you took steroids, you're out. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have taken steroids. If you needed to take the steroids to get there, you don't deserve being there. But if you were good enough anyway, why take it, but if you did, I could see someone still putting you in.

Both hitters and pitchers did it, so it's hard to exclude one set without excluding the other set. A hit could have been by a steriods user, a big strikeout by one, or both could have been on it. Hard to tell to what extent every AB was affected by one. But it's not just about the hitters.

I also think the racists, sexual abusers; people guilty of domestic violence; are more immoral than cheaters, but they've still made it.

In a different sport, it came out recently that a tennis coach in the hall of fame is under investigation for abusing girls. (He has since then been kicked out of the HOF.)

South African tennis champion Bob Hewitt under investigation over claims he 'sexually abused young girls that he coached' | Mail Online

It would get too complicated trying to say "this would have happened" or "this wouldn't have happened". So, "just pick good players."

I would keep the ban on Pete Rose.

 

[nuraman00]

I'm not big on baseball,

Do you mean you're not as knowledgeable, or you're not as big of a fan?

If it's the latter, start liking it more.