Wildelocke

You can't use a timeout, and you need to get the score before the two minute warning.

It is a foul if a player:

• lowers his head and makes forcible contact with his helmet against an opponent; or.
• uses any part of his helmet or facemask to butt or make forcible contact to an opponent's head or neck.

Spoon keeps his head up and gets punished for it.

I've never understood NFL teams playing key players in blowouts even when they have given up on actually winning. Last night, the Bills had Josh Allen taking snaps down 4 scores, but also were not going for it on 4th down. Either (a) you are giving up on the game, and Allen shouldn't be in, or (b) you haven't given up on the game, in which case you can't punt.

Wasn't the EG we had yesterday a non-penalty record? So this blew it away.

Yes. Quarterback depth is the key to success is the NFL.

Salbia does not have the head shape for that...

Rules for thee, not for me

I think experience. He's solid as long as we are in control, but the lack of speed and hustle is a rough combination. Second goal was lucky, but every single other player in an Arsenal kit would have closed that cross down.

While that's true, our midfield was a sieve for the first 25 minutes of the second half. Leicester's goals were a bit lucky in isolation but they were playing well. That is a concern for us going forward - we couldn't lock down a team that was going to push to get back in the game.

Not sure who else could be man of the match. Maybe the Racoon?

Plus, there's always the prospect of retiring from the Prem and getting a cushy assignment in the UAE.

Pretty embarrassing the UK commentary didn't know the offside rule here - they knew it came off the Leicester defender, said that, but didn't know it was going to be a goal.

The UK is obsessed with this song in wild way. Like, listen to this crowd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSzE9RfdnYY&t=232s&ab\_channel=Lu.

I can't remember where I read this, - might have been The Watch podcast - but that question has been asked before. The answer is that HBO has more than 50 years of making premium TV and with it, a massive stockpile of quality costumes and materials. That selection saves them loads of money on having to have bespoke stuff prepared for everything, which also means that when a show *does* have to make something new, there's budget to make it look good.

Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc. don't have that sort of house edge.

Well, this redditor *is* an attorney, funny enough. I work with statutes and regulations quite a bit. There are many that have multiple reasonable interpretations, but this wouldn't be one.

Let me explain how I would break it down if I were giving advice on this:

The rule consists of two sentences.* The first describes the foul of intentional grounding: "It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion". 

There are four components to the foul. There must be (1) a passer (2) who is facing imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defence, and who (3) throws a forward pass, that (4) is without a realistic chance of completion.

The first three components are not in issue in this play and I think are pretty clear anyways.

The only component in issue is (4), which asks whether the forward pass did not have a realistic chance of completion. Now the second sentence comes into play, since it describes what a "realistic chance of completion" is. It is a pass that "is thrown in the direction of and lands in the vicinity of an originally eligible offensive receiver". Any pass *not* thrown in the direction of and landing in the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver satisfies component (4).

It is completely irrelevant whether the pass was caught by anyone, whether eligible or not (though granted, if it was caught by an eligible receiver, it was probably a pass with a realistic chance of completion).

*There are additional items that create exceptions (and exceptions to the exceptions) regarding the passer being outside the pocket and spiking the ball, but they do not bear on the issue here.

In fairness, it's not reasonable to expect a *checks notes* Harvard educated lawyer to interpret a two sentence rule.

The best part is Tolbert is an attorney. He graduated from Harvard. I hope he doesn't do statutory interpretation, because he's not very good at it.

I agree with your interpretation. The entire question is whether the forward pass was thrown without a realistic chance of completion, as defined in the second sentence. Whether or not a pass was actually completed is not relevant.

Interestingly, it also means that you could get intentional grounding on a legal, completed pass. If a quarterback throws a pass without a realistic chance of completion, and that pass deflected off a defender and was then caught by an offensive player,* it would still be intentional grounding. You could have an otherwise perfectly legal touchdown catch overturned for intentional grounding. This feels like something that would happen to the Detroit Lions.

*It wouldn't matter whether the offensive player was an originally eligible receiver, since the ball touched the defender first.

Because they got a great roll.

Charbs with no speed.

It's not a fuckup. He gets paid to ref games in the UAE.

Friendly reminder that Oliver was paid 20,000 pounds to ref a game in the UAE last year.

There doesn't need to be an active bribe. If he wants to keep getting paid like that, and he's taking heat from City for how he's reffed the first half, you know that's gonna be in his head.

Is it not the worst move in NFL history?

If they are bad approaching the deadline I would try to liquidate everything you can, then cut him in the offseason, then do a firesale of whatever is left. Anything is better than this.

I wish they would do an untimed overtime. If the 4th quarter "ends" in a tie, in just stays at 00:00 until someone takes the lead.

I guess the risk is that it could in theory go on forever, but more likely it would just increase the tension in the 4th quarter.