Did anyone else see the Bear running back move sideways before the snap and then realize he was early and stop. I was wondering if that should have been a penalty. It turned out to be a pretty important play late in the game.
Yeah, it should have been called. The RB made it funny at least.Did anyone else see the Bear running back move sideways before the snap and then realize he was early and stop. I was wondering if that should have been a penalty. It turned out to be a pretty important play late in the game.
Yes, if it's the play I'm thinking of I'm pretty sure he even looked right at the ref as though he was expecting a whistle, lolDid anyone else see the Bear running back move sideways before the snap and then realize he was early and stop. I was wondering if that should have been a penalty. It turned out to be a pretty important play late in the game.
Yeah, he did. If you would listen to Teddy brewski like I told you you could stop making dumb statements.Once again: read the rulebook and get back to me. Did Bruschi say which rule was broken? Somehow I doubt it.
The only remotely debatable aspect here is whether or not one second elapsed between when the ball was snapped and the long snapper was engaged. The rest of it is perfectly legal. Pushing and “lifting” a fellow defender are not illegal.
Is there a reason you’re so opposed to actually showing me the rule that says otherwise? The rulebook is free and easy to find. I’ll even help you out:
See, wasn’t that easy?
(This is also a good reminder that AI is not infallible. If you actually took the time to look at the sources it used to generate that answer, you’d notice that they all refer specifically to circumstances involving aiding the ball carrier on offense, nothing to do with defenders.)
look above smart guy. 5 Seconds on Google and another 60 seconds on YouTube and you can listen to Teddy and if you can read look above and find out why the play that you guys did was illegal.Once again: read the rulebook and get back to me. Did Bruschi say which rule was broken? Somehow I doubt it.
The only remotely debatable aspect here is whether or not one second elapsed between when the ball was snapped and the long snapper was engaged. The rest of it is perfectly legal. Pushing and “lifting” a fellow defender are not illegal.
Is there a reason you’re so opposed to actually showing me the rule that says otherwise? The rulebook is free and easy to find. I’ll even help you out:
See, wasn’t that easy?
(This is also a good reminder that AI is not infallible. If you actually took the time to look at the sources it used to generate that answer, you’d notice that they all refer specifically to circumstances involving aiding the ball carrier on offense, nothing to do with defenders.)
Are you even reading what I've said? The AI summary you keep linking is literally referencing aiding the offensive player.look above smart guy. 5 Seconds on Google and another 60 seconds on YouTube and you can listen to Teddy and if you can read look above and find out why the play that you guys did was illegal.
Ok, so either you don't understand the NFL rulebook or you don't understand how AI works, or both, I guess.? What are you talking about aiding an offensive player it literally says verbatim "opposing defenders cannot lift or push their fellow defenders"
What is there to not understand?
Here's the three sources Google's AI cited to arrive at that conclusion:You must be logged in to see this image or video!
I mean lol...... ok bro. One of us here is wrong and I guess it's a good thing that we both know who it is.Ok, so either you don't understand the NFL rulebook or you don't understand how AI works, or both, I guess.
You're gonna want to click the little link shown there. That's the source that Google's AI summary is drawing from and it's specifically speaking towards *offensive* players. The fact that the AI-generated answer didn't deem it necessary to include that bit of sourcing doesn't make it less true. I can't believe I'm actually getting drawn into an argument here with someone who apparently thinks AI is completely infallible and incapable of generating an incomplete, misleading, or incorrect answer/summary. Sheesh.
I've already linked the rulebook for you. Like I said, if you can point to which specific rule you keep citing as "literally says it's illegal," I'd be happy to take a look at it and concede if I've got it wrong. Rule, section, article, and item. But something tells me I'll be waiting a while for that one.I mean lol...... ok bro. One of us here is wrong and I guess it's a good thing that we both know who it is.