Comments on: Jones doesn't seem inclined to ever move video board

By: bustahead

bustahead — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:47:16 +0000

TSE: Hey Bro, take a pill…I’m afraid your blood pressure is going sky high and Jerry is STILL not going to have to move the damn board!!!
The fact is, this is a situation that just isn’t covered! Period! Besides, the ONLY way that screen is going to be hit is on purpose!! If a punter wants to gas his team on do overs then so be it. It will only hurt his team.

By: pubicreign

pubicreign — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:14:31 +0000

Vox, you are going to need alot of time to windle up excuses to post in deffense of your pathetic team. Maybe they should have invested some time, money, effort, into real raw talent. While your O-line ages, the coach still sucks, you continue to brag on your bargain pick ups (Romo), your sad recieving corps, and spotty (polite term) D. You are spending way to much time of your life researching pointless statistics, city records, etc. Your team and everything evil it stands for blows harder than romo blows wittens junk.

By: TSE

TSE — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:50:50 +0000

And now that he threw the flag once, now I have the slippery slope effect of forcing his hand to throw it an infinite number of times in this game!

By: TSE

TSE — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:50:17 +0000

Oh, also I consider it a PALPABLY unfair act that MY punter has to use up so much stamina to keep wasting his time on dead ball do-overs that are caused by a stupid fixture that shouldn’t be there!
Don’t blame me, it’s a game and I’m ALLOWED to punt the ball any way I want in any direction. There’s no rule against that, but there IS a rule against a PALPABLY unfair act, such as putting an obstacle in the middle of the playing area that I want to utilize. I have a right to play with that space and I’m exercising that right.
Thus, all of these do-overs are PALPABLY UNFAIR, throw the damn flag Ref!!

By: TSE

TSE — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:47:28 +0000

I agree with a lot of your points to some extent.
But it doesn’t matter what you or I think, it matters what an unprepared referee thinks when he’s confronted with the issue at the time.
Say for example the NFL already said that hitting the scoreboard is a dead ball. Well they didn’t really give a comprehensive ruling and detailed ruling. So if it’s a dead ball do-over and I hit it again, and then again, then that activates say excessive delay of game, and the home team is at fault for the obstacle. Again this ties into working the semantics and interpretation, and thus gives the referee an angle to make a ruling in favor of the punting team.
It’s all about packaging and presenting the argument as best as you can and it opens the door of possibilities to be a huge snafu problem for the Cowboys.

By: JJsBigTv

JJsBigTv — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:24:20 +0000

I know that snapping the ball starts a play, but it can also be interpreted that repeatedly blocking a ball with stadium equipment to create an infinite loop of dead balls is also stopping the ball from being put into play,
**No, it can’t be. Once the ball is snapped, by definition, it has been put into play. whatever happens after the ball is snapped does not change the fact that the snap has put the ball into play.
not from the moment the ball is on the ground and snapped into play, but the moment that the ball is traveling up and toward the scoreboard, as every second the ball is traveling IN PLAY it is ALSO traveling INTO further play, thus stopping it with a deal ball is stopping it from going FURTHER in play,
**There is no such thing as further into play. a ball is either dead or in play. it’s a binary condition. before the snap the ball is dead and if it isn’t snapped in a timely fashion (for any of the reasons in the rule book) a delay of game penalty can result. the instant the ball is snapped it is in play. anything that happens after that can no longer cause a delay of game penalty.
and the stopping of “IN PLAY” is the key.
** No, it isn’t. Stopping a ball that’s IN PLAY has nothing to do with delay of game. Delay of game is caused when a dead ball is not put into play in a timely manner.

By: Stlgreg

Stlgreg — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:12:26 +0000

hello morons.. I dont know where you are getting your figured from.. this is the breakdown of who paid for what
Public portion: $350 million
Arlington $325 million
Tarrant County $25 million
Jerry Jones’ portion: $750 million
Admission tax/parking fee $114 million
Founders all-access seats $75 million
Private auction-rate bonds $126 million
Remaining personal seat licenses* $359 million
NFL construction loan $76 million

By: unlost

unlost — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:45:51 +0000

this almost proves that T.O. is normal

By: TSE

TSE — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:10:57 +0000

Here’s another one for you Vox, since you seem to think a simple disagreement means a person is an idiot.
How come during some instant replays when the issue is on a very specific exact thing like if the ball hit the ground, that we can see times where the commentators call it wrong and the referee calls it something else? Haven’t you ever seen a play where the commentators are in disagreement if that ball is touching the ground, or coming loose or what not, and they can’t tell even with slow motion replay for sure what is happening, and you in the audience also have a different opinion, and then the referee sees something else? How can that be? We are all looking at the same thing on a very specific thing, but INTERPRETATIONS are what counts, and not everybody comes to the same conclusion when looking at a given fact, whether visual or a matter of the English language. That’s why we have lawyers and judges and juries and not robots to handle the legal system.

By: TSE

TSE — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:02:22 +0000

Vox
Your assertion that the punter is at fault is wrong, because they are allowed to play with the ball any way they want, it’s the fixture that is getting in the way. Kind of like if a BB player is standing out of bounds you could just at any time smack him in the face with the ball and while it would hurt, it would not be a foul, it would be a loss of possession for him having failed his responsibility to stay in play. You take advantage of his dumb position.
Also, i said middle of “surrounding” surface, and the space above the turf I believe the NFL considers to be part of the surface, or perhaps the playing area would be a better term. So can JJ put a scoreboard on the field at the 50 yard line? It’s not hanging, so it’s not breaking the 85 foot hanging rule right? See the problem?
And so what if the NFL does write a rule like that for intentional scoreboard punting? Until they do, I will use it against the Cowboys.

By: Doohickey

Doohickey — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:00:01 +0000

Do you people ever get tired of getting your panties twisted up in knots over this stupid non-issue (that includes you, Florio)? This is the stupidest non-story of the year.
The only problem here is the do-over rule. Balls bouncing off the scoreboard should be in play. Most baseball parks have ground rules – even rules for indoor parks that dictate how balls are to be played off of structural members.

By: Florios-Lawyer

Florios-Lawyer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:39:12 +0000

“…TSE says: September 8, 2009 10:48 AM
One, I’m not dumb. Two, I’m actually a certified genius…
I can agree with the “certified” part…

By: VoxVeritas

VoxVeritas — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:31:48 +0000

“I know that snapping the ball starts a play, but it can also be interpreted that repeatedly blocking a ball with stadium equipment to create an infinite loop of dead balls is also stopping the ball from being put into play”
Actually intentionally punting the ball into the screens 100 times is closer to your intentional delay of game scenario.
“This is in a sense a way to call foul on the Cowboys for intentionally creating dead ball situations by having their board in the middle of the surrounding playing surface.”
Um, the boards are not in the middle of the playing surface. Fact is the boards are higher than the NFL calls for, and this “construction rule” or whatever you called it is as much a part of the game rules as the prescribed playing field dimensions are.
You’re going really far to find something that doesn’t exist. Like I told you yesterday. The rule is very simple. Whether a ball hits it once or a hundred times: Do it again. If punters or whomever take to trying to hit it during game situations, I expect further rules to be drafted to deal with that. Rules that penalize the punter for needlessly delaying the game. There’s already a rule in place for passers that attempt passes that have no realistic expectation of completion. It’s called intentional grounding.

By: TSE

TSE — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:48:36 +0000

Big Ben Rapistberger
One, I’m not dumb. Two, I’m actually a certified genius. Three, you are not very smart.
The reasons are because I DID NOT SAY I AGREE with that particular interpretation. All I’m doing is FISHING for ways to find LOOSE interpretations that could POSSIBLY apply for purposes of being a coach to try and challenge a referee during the game. I’m not going to petition the NFL in advance and wait for them to make a comprehensive ruling with regard to that rule and determine that they don’t agree with that loose interpretation, I want the REFEREE to make that call, cause the rulebook states that the REFEREE has final say. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or not, what matters is if I can sell ANY INTERPRETATION to the REFERRE, NOT TO YOU!
So all I did was FISH for something that somebody else can CHOOSE to use if they want to. They can pick anything from those ideas I mentioned, all I was doing was trying to find the BEST cases in the rulebook that could possibly be used.
And I know what extraneous means and what it GENERALLY applies to. I know obviously that the rulemakers did not write that rule thinking they were covering a scoreboard, but if it in a legal sense does fit with a scoreboard, then it DOES NOT MATTER what the rulemakers INTENDED, it only matters what they actually wrote!
Jackson -
How is this not constructive with my time? If I’m a Cowboys opponent and I can invent a way to automatically get a HUGE advantage in a game by intentionally punting the ball into the scoreboard 100 times for free yardage after closing the REFEREE on this perspective, then I have done my job and won the game. Now I am not an actual head coach in the NFL, but I do this stuff because I’m a fan, so I like to pretend that I am, you know for entertainment purposes because football is a hobby. So what you are saying is that a person should NOT spend time on a hobby in general? You believe that every person in the entire world should NEVER spend 1 second on a hobby? Is that what you are saying?
JJsBigTV -
YES. But not after the fact am I going to complain. I’m saying I’m going to approach the referee, say on the sideline and basically work him and converse with him on the points I brought up to tell him what I’m going to do and that he needs to do his job and enforce the rules. If I can get him to agree, whether he’s right or not, then I have accomplished my goal. I know that snapping the ball starts a play, but it can also be interpreted that repeatedly blocking a ball with stadium equipment to create an infinite loop of dead balls is also stopping the ball from being put into play, not from the moment the ball is on the ground and snapped into play, but the moment that the ball is traveling up and toward the scoreboard, as every second the ball is traveling IN PLAY it is ALSO traveling INTO further play, thus stopping it with a deal ball is stopping it from going FURTHER in play, and the stopping of “IN PLAY” is the key.
There is also another rule that says a team can’t take an unlimited delay of games, which means intentional delaying of the game. This is in a sense a way to call foul on the Cowboys for intentionally creating dead ball situations by having their board in the middle of the surrounding playing surface.

By: jimicos

jimicos — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:30:08 +0000

noname says:
September 7, 2009 11:13 PM
Has anyone thought what happens when a QB hits the scoreboard with a pass? It wouldn’t happen accidentally but say there’s nobody, why not hit the scorebaord and get a do over?
——————————
Never going to happen. Which QB is going to spot a play so cocked up from the start that he wants a do over, and then be able to set up and launch that 90 ft pass before getting his lunch money stolen?
Much as I’d like to see it happen, nothing’s going to change Jerry’s dumb mind until it costs his team a win. Maybe the punter launches a booming kick that grazes the screen, gets called back and costs the Cowboys precious field position. Maybe the officials incorrectly rule that a huge kick grazed the screen and it gets called back. Some way it has to cost him. Otherwise he’s not changing it.
But if one of those examples does happen, I’d love to see the shade of red his face turns. I think his head would turn into a donkey’s head like in the old cartoons. That’d be an improvement.

By: Jackson

Jackson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:14:46 +0000

Big ben Rapistburger………..agreed 100%. I’m a cowboys fan and Vox is over the top and TSE needs to do something more constructive with his time.

By: VoxVeritas

VoxVeritas — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:14:42 +0000

“Except Jerry Jones didn’t pay 1.2 billion. At most he paid 120 million. See Dallas (as in city of) fronted 933 million with another 150 mil coming from the NFL.”
Seriously, where do you morons come up with this crap? The stadium’s not even IN Dallas! The $933 million figure you’re citing includes like 25 years of interest and insurance on the original ~$300 million bonds.

By: VoxVeritas

VoxVeritas — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:08:39 +0000

“Funny, Vox, I don’t recall any stench you describe ever wafting my way at Gillette”
Catfish don’t think that they stink, either.

By: VoxVeritas

VoxVeritas — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:06:56 +0000

“Wow VoxVeritas, you only posted 10 times to this thread.”
Wow, you’re counting my posts. How badly must your life suck?

By: indymag

indymag — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:45:03 +0000

That’s fine. Don’t move it. Just make it so that it’s ineligible for hosting Super Bowls until it is moved. Then the cathedral won’t look so holy.

By: Big ben Rapistburger

Big ben Rapistburger — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:32:25 +0000

First, Vox, you are pathetic. Just because you google something on the net, doesnt mean that the facts are true. I can google stories about aliens right now, but it doesnt mean they are true. How gay do you have to be to dispute every single post that doesnt say something like:
“I love Romo”
“I suck dick”
or “the Cowboys are the best”
I am just amazed that every story about the Cowboys is followed by 75 comments, and 45 of those are from Vox. You dont know everything dude, let it go.
Second, TSE, Vox is right, you are an IDIOT. I can believe you said this:
“Rule 12 Section 3, Article 1, item F…
Possession or use of foreign or extraneous object that are not part of the uniform ….”
Seriously, are you THAT dumb. That rule means, that a player cant carry a baseball bat, or knife, or gun, or hockey stick, etc., to use against the other player. To give an example, as you like to do, a defensive back, can not carry a hockey stick, and then use said hockey stick, to reach up and knock the ball down before the receiver can catch it. I realize it is stupid to even have to say that, but, based on your interpretation of the rules, it had to be said……..

By: hayward giablommi

hayward giablommi — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:18:14 +0000

“Cheapest seats in Gillette are $65. But you can get standing room tickets for $49. Cowboys Stadium has cheaper seat and standing room prices AND you have the added benefit of not having to smell the stench of years of organized cheating OR being surrounded by overweight, unibrowed Massholes. ***”
^^^^^^^
Funny, Vox, I don’t recall any stench you describe ever wafting my way at Gillette, but I when I am there in three weeks I will double check, just to make sure, and get back to ya. Don’t recall ever seeing a unibrow or many overweight women, so I guess that makes you 0 for 3.
I guess you would voluntarily affix ** to the Super Bowls JJ won in ’92 and ’93, yes?

By: homercles82

homercles82 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:52:04 +0000

JJ says “I’m maximizing the stadium experience for fans” but isn’t hanging the worlds largest widescreen that shows the game above the actual game detracting from the onfield action which is why I go to games. I also feel like most people go to actually watch the game on field.
I did not pay attention but does anyone know if during actual gameplay do they just show the team logo or is it a HUGE scoreboard?
I know the Redskins make theirs a scoreboard but that thing is so pitiful I never pay attention to it.

By: Florios-Lawyer

Florios-Lawyer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:15:02 +0000

Wow VoxVeritas, you only posted 10 times to this thread. Are you giving up your job as Chief Dallas Cowboys/Jerry Jones Apologist? Or are you just busy fixin’ the busted refrigerator on your front porch?

By: JJsBigTv

JJsBigTv — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:56:46 +0000

TSE says:
Clearly no one is going to turn you away from your opinion that the low scoreboard is an in game violation, but this is just wrong:
Rule 4 Article 9….
The ball must be put in play promptly and ANY action or inaction by either team that tends to prevent this is a delay of game.
That is the exact rule. So if I’m playing against the Cowboys and I kick the scoreboard, I then contest that the Dallas team is stopping the ball from being put into play through the inaction of raising the scoreboard.
So you are going to:
1) put the ball in play by snapping it to your punter
(rule 7 section 3)
2) kick the ball into the scoreboard
3) claim that the Dallas team is stopping the ball (which has already been put into play by being snapped) from being put into play

By: VoxVeritas

VoxVeritas — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:43:29 +0000

OMG.
“Possession or use of foreign or extraneous object that are not part of the uniform”
“So, if you say that simply having the board there is against sportsmanship in general”
“I then contest that the Dallas team is stopping the ball from being put into play through the inaction of raising the scoreboard.”
“If I’m the head coach of their opponent you can count on me to clearly and concisely remind the referee of these rules before the game and petition him to follow the wording of these rules as he sees fit in order to correctly follow the letter of the law.”
Seriously, you’re an idiot. I’m sorry, but somebody had to say it and that somebody is me.

By: Zaggs

Zaggs — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:06:28 +0000

“we can’t say we would feel any differently if we were the ones who had plunked down the $1.2 billion.”
Except Jerry Jones didn’t pay 1.2 billion. At most he paid 120 million. See Dallas (as in city of) fronted 933 million with another 150 mil coming from the NFL. So in reality the league paid more for the stadium then Jerry did. So after this year Goodell should just start fining Dallas or deducting draft picks until he moves it.

By: Debacled

Debacled — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:24:27 +0000

Mr. Florio, you mentioned the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry Jones’ handedness- yet no mention of Charles Haley’s alleged dexterous activities in team meetings?

By: ras6111

ras6111 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:21:08 +0000

The Death Star is a better name than Tony Romo’s House of Choke.

By: TSE

TSE — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:19:06 +0000

Ok the rulebook is a few hundred pages so I’m not going to read every page, but from glancing at it, here are a few rules that could apply that would put JJ in a position of having to pay to move the board or suffer the penalty consequences assessed. Again, these are NOT related to construction code rules that the NFL sets, they are GAME rules that MUST be followed. Just because you can have something satisfy the height rule doesn’t preclude it from violating a GAME RULE.
Here’s a few I found that MAY apply depending on interpretations…
Rule 12 Section 3, Article 1, item F…
Possession or use of foreign or extraneous object that are not part of the uniform ….
That one VIOLATES unsportsmanlike conduct, so there is ONE possibility.
Secondly, there are several references about palpably unfair acts that are up to referee discretion, that could apply, third there is a general sportsmanlike rule that says…
There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct…this applies to any act which is contrary to the generally understood principles of sportsmanship.
So, if you say that simply having the board there is against sportsmanship in general, then that general rule would apply. SOME examples that are listed in this section point to things that are unsportsmanlike for sure but it also says “among others” in the preface of the rule to indicate that it is open-ended for anything that can fit within the scope of unsportsmanlike conduct, which COULD include placing a giant scoreboard above the field!
Ahh here’s ANOTHER good one…
Rule 4 Article 9….
The ball must be put in play promptly and ANY action or inaction by either team that tends to prevent this is a delay of game.
That is the exact rule. So if I’m playing against the Cowboys and I kick the scoreboard, I then contest that the Dallas team is stopping the ball from being put into play through the inaction of raising the scoreboard.
In Rule 15 that has to do with referee powers and jurisdiction there is a blanket statement that basically says the referee has final say and general oversight of any disagreements and that his decision is final.
Here’s some of the language regarding the palpably unfair acts:
The Referee, after consulting the crew, enforces any such distance penalty as they consider equitable and irrespective of any other specified code penalty. The referee could award a score.
That is exact wording above. So if the other team contests that the scoreboard is palpably unfair, then the Referee has open-ended authority to award any distance penalty that he feels is equitable.
So there you have it, within those areas above looks like the best chance to contest that the Cowboys are breaking a rule that deserves a penalty. If I’m the head coach of their opponent you can count on me to clearly and concisely remind the referee of these rules before the game and petition him to follow the wording of these rules as he sees fit in order to correctly follow the letter of the law. How the referee interprets these sections is ultimately his decision but you can bet that I’m going to be constantly contesting that I have a case to make sure that he can find the right interpretation in order to throw a flag.