RedRamage

What I would love to see is that whole rule book re-evaluated. The rule book is based, of course, on a game that's more than 100 years old and I'm quite certain that many of the rules are based what made sense back in the 1920 game. They've of course been amended and updated and changed, but I suspect that many existing rules are based on the core ideas of the game back then. Take the whole book and have some people sit down and go through it rule by rule: What is the purpose of this rule? What is it trying to accomplish? Is it to define the basic game? Is it to make the game more entertaining for the audience? Is it for player safety? Get to the bottom of the intent of the rule of the rule first, and then ask: Does it make sense in today's game? I suspect MOST of them will still apply, but I'm also sure that there will be at least some that do not. For each rule that still applies, ask: Should it be modified given how the game exists now and what we know about player safety, to achieve it's purpose better? For each rules that doesn't still fit with today's game, ask: Does the intent of the rule (make the game safer, more entertaining, better defined/understood) still make sense? Is so, how do we update the rule to make it fit the original intent? Examples: 10 second run off of the clock if officials call on the field stopped the clock, but review overturns the call and the clock should have been running. This is obviously what happened to the Lions in the Falcons game a few years back. What's the intent of the rule? To prevent granting an extra "time out" for a team trying to score before the clock runs out. The defense shouldn't get penalized if they did the right thing (for example, tackled a player in bounds) and the refs made the wrong call (said the ball carrier got over the sideline). Does it still apply in today's game? Yes, probably. Should it be modified for today's game? Yes, probably: Given that teams are drilled on quickly getting set and ready for the next play, they likely can get in place and run a play in less than 10 second, depending somewhat of where the ball is spotted vs. the original line of scrimmage. Suggested modification: Knock it down to 5 second run off or possibly make it dependent on how far away from the original line of scrimmage the ball is spotted. (For example, >20 yards = 10 second run off, =<20 yards = 5 second run off.

But the wording of the rules doesn't seem to define what a T-formation QB is. The stuff about touching or hands under center, etc... that's all after the fact. The rule to mean, reads like this: A T-formation QB can go in motion even if he's put his hands under center or touched the center, etc... I do not think this defines or establishes a T-formation QB. There may be some other rules somewhere else that define this and Goff may or may not have been a T-formation QB based on those rules, I dunno. Assuming he was a T-form QB, yes, they broke the rule. However, I would actually argue that the Lions were guilty of a False Start before the play happened. I think Goff's actions were absolutely abrupt and quick, which the rules define as a False Start if done by a T-form QB. I think I've said this once here already, but I suspect the NFL would just say: "We didn't review or overturn the call. We did call in to remind the officials what the rule was, but then we stepped back and allowed the refs to make the call as they saw it. It's a technicality imho... even if the replay officials didn't tell the refs: "It's foul, flag it." they certainly gave the impression to the refs that they should flag it. Any time the replay booth is going to buzz in to remind refs the specifics of a rule they're doing it because they thought the rule was called wrong.

Didn't appeals used to take a lot longer? Honestly when I heard Branch was appealing I 100% thought it was a stalling tactic to make sure he could play against the Bucs with Arnold and Kerby both being questionable and that they'd then drop the appeal after the game.

This is the least troubling of things in my opinion. I suspect bets like this happen all the time and 99.99% of the time we never hear about them because they don't pay out and/or it's just a off hand news item: "Oh wow, that person was lucky!" It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that Goff could have the first score. The Lions are a known "trick play" team. They've passed to Goff twice, one leading to a TD. Goff has also rushed for two TDs with the Lions. I think it's far more likely that someone saw the potential huge winnings and took a flyer on it vs. someone leaked that the Lions were gonna try this play. (I mean even if you accept that a leak happened, someone betting on it was still taking a HUGE long shot... Even if the bettor 100% knew that the Lions would try this trick play if they got within 5 yards of the end zone, there's still long odd against: You have to have the Lions get the ball first or prevent the Chiefs from scoring on their first drive. You have to have the Lions get close enough to the EZ, but also not get into the endzone. You have to have the Lions run the play successfully. None of those things are gimmies at all.) Now, the other questionable side of things might be: Did the gambling house call up the NFL and ask them to overturn the play so they didn't lose half a million dollars? Imho: No. First, half a million is probably not a huge amount to a gambling house, and it would likely off set, at least partial, on the far more numerous bets placed on any other player to likely score first. Second, if the gambling houses are in cahoots with the league enough to make calls like these I doubt the risk the exposure on a bet that again seems relatively lowish to me. Third, the NFL didn't just make up a rule on the spot to appease the gambling house. Granted, they may have stretch the interpretation of the rule, but there still has to be some rule that they could fudge this on. And finally, it seems unlikely that the play happens, the gambling house checks and sees that they're going to lose a bunch of money, calls into the NFL, the NFL reviews and then look up the rule book, and decides there's at least enough wiggle room in this obscure rule to overturn, and then buzzes in to the refs within 120 seconds.

On one hand: If this was buzzed down to the officials (and this seems more and more likely after it already seemed probable), then this does seem to go against the rules that NFL has setup regarding what's reviewable and what isn't. On the other hand: If this is truly how the rule is written, then the Lions did break the rule on that play and it shouldn't have stood. I'm very conflicted on this as the Lions certainly have been screwed over in the past on things that should have been called but weren't (example: The ball batted out of the endzone vs. Seattle). I generally want the rules to be called correctly rather than an apology after the fact that the officials got a call wrong. But... This is obviously a very obscure rule. But... still a rule. But... is it? What's the actual text of the rule? Does it define what actions a players needs to make to be considered a QB under center or is that open to interpretation? And if it is then I definitely go back to the refs on the field didn't think it was a foul and shouldn't be reviewable. In the end it's just going to end up as one more footnote in Lions history of another controversial thing that (probably) screwed over the Lions.

Yeah, it's a bit of a mystery to me why DMo isn't being used as much... now, I will say we don't have a great sample size, so it's possible it's just a matter of the game plan... thinking Gibbs is more effective against this defense. However, the early numbers definitely favor Gibbs.

I kinda agree. It was an avoidable penalty, certainly. But to me it's more of a case of the light turned yellow and I think I can make it through but... oops, it turned red before I hit the intersection. It was a misjudgment, not a blatant effort to break the rules. Branch's action was more of I'm stopped at a red light, but I think I see an open area large enough, I'm gonna gun it and run the red light and slip through traffic. This was a blatant, stupid decision and I suspect it'll cost him at least one game, maybe two. It's also going to increase his a bad reputation with the league. We all saw how that effected Suh. Even stuff that was questionable (or even not very questionable at all) was assumed to be a deliberate act because of his rep, and he was penalized heavily for it. Further, in game, teams will know they might be able to get Branch worked up by goading him. I don't want to over blow this and say Branch is evil or anything... the act itself was pretty minor over all, plus he owned up to it and said it was stupid and wrong and he shouldn't have done. So I'm not clutching at pearls here in terms of saying on horrible the actual act was. Rather I'm worried about the damage it could do him in terms of reputation.

Yeah but, that Carlos Monarrez. The guy is a click bait/shock jock ... er reporter. His entire schtick is getting people riled up and "hate reading" his columns.

I find it amazing that parts of Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, and Indiana aren't getting the game that's played by the team in their state!

Yeah, it wasn't a very good performance by many on defense. I honestly felt Hutch wasn't that great in this game.

I think the rebuttal would be that it wasn't reviewed, it was discussed by the refs. Now I know that sounds like a semantic argument, but what I mean is the refs have always been allowed to huddle to discuss a play and change their mind... even before replay was a thing. They do this quite often for intentional grounding, for example. Now... this assumes that the refs really did talk about it themselves and weren't buzzed by replay. That's definitely something that might be debatable, but their story is that they did it themselves without help.

My biggest disappointment on this whole thing was that the flag nullifies just an AMAZING blocking performance by ARSB. If that play stands I think we're all talking a lot more about how great a job he did on it.

To me, right now (I reserve the right to change my mind later of course), it feels like the Golden Tate non-touchdown against the Falcons... it was the right call, probably, but it's a stupid rule.

I mean... that wasn't a very hard record to break, but yeah he does. It's be more impressive sounding (to non-Lions fans at least) to say he as twice as many playoff wins in the SB era compared to all other Lions QBs combine!

After a bit more looking, I found that there have been at least TWO previous version. The version I have is this one: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/32036/monopoly-grand-rapids-edition/images I feel like this did a pretty good job of being Iconic Grand Rapids. Then there's this version: I can only find a eBay listing with more details (https://www.ebay.com/itm/205447113823). This is obviously not a Hasbro licensed version but a knock off. It feels like it was made by someone who googled things about Grand Rapids, but at least they did a better job of putting like-things together from what I can tell.

So apparently a new "Grand Rapids Monopoly" just came out. I know there has been at least one previous version, but that version is a bit dated so I was curious to see what the new one would be like. Short version: HORRIBLE. Properties are: Brown: Fish Ladder Park and Provin Trails. Okay, I can kinda see Fish Ladder. That's not super iconic, but it is definitely part of Grand Rapids and relatively well known. I've never even heard of Provin Trails before looking up. Looks interesting... un-improved trails. However, it certainly isn't iconic Grand Rapids. In fact, it's a Kent County Park that's outside of Grand Rapids city limits. Seems a very odd choice. Lt. Blue: GR Public Museum, John Ball Zoo, (okay, liking where this is going) and Steelhead Trout. Um, what? A museum, a zoo, and... a fish? How are those grouped together? Pink: Medical Mile, Lantern Festival, Wealthy Street. Huh? For non-Grand Rapidians, Medial Mile is a stretch where there's a bunch of hospitals and medical research and education things. It's well known, so yeah I like that. Wealthy street is okay... it's historic in terms of how long it's been in GR I guess and starting to be built back up, so okay, I can understand that. But then Lantern Festival? Again, the grouping makes no sense and Lantern Festival is really not an iconic Grand Rapids thing at all. Orange: Schuler Books, Bridge Street Market, and Meijer. Eh... I mean, I guess? Schuler Books isn't like a major business or anything, but it is Grand Rapids in origin. Bridge Street Market is okay, and I understand Meijer, which is definitely GR based. Red: Mr. Burger, Grand Rapids Popcorn, and Chili Dog. Eh... maybe? I mean I won't really consider Mr. Burger or GR Popcorn to be iconic businesses, but I suppose?? But then we tack on a food item? Again... what? I get the feeling that maybe they wanted this to be Yesterdog or something but Yesterdog didn't want to pay out?? Yellow: Downtown Grand Rapids, Amway Grand Plaza, Ford Airport. Again two of these make sense to me. Amway Grand Plaza is very iconic GR. It's the first real tall building that was built in GR. And of course the airport is a major thing. But "Downtown"? You have two notable building, and then a ill-defined area? Green: Gun Lake Casino Resort, Art Prize, Cherry Street. -Facepalm- Okay so Gun Lake is well known, but... it's more than 20 minutes outside of Grand Rapids. Art Prize is very iconic GR, so that's okay. Cherry Street is like Wealthy Street. But again what heck is up with this grouping? A business well outside of GR limits, an event, and a semi-historic street? Dk Blue: Grand River and the Blue Bridge. At least these are iconic GR. The city is named after the rapids that used to be here on the Grand River and the Blue Pedestrian Bridge is pretty well known. These seem odd choices to the most expensive properties and the grouping (one natural, one man made) is a little odd. Utilities: Reeds Lake and Riverwalk Promenade. Reeds Lake is better known as part of East Grand Rapids (wealthy suburb of GR) but it's close enough that I'm okay with it. The Riverwalk Promenade is an okay inclusion... but again, odd pairing. Railroads: (oh boy... hang on folks) Mountain Biking, Paddleboarding, The Rapid, and Fishing. What? Biking and Fishing... sure, that happens a lot in GR. So, outdoor activities is the theme? Paddleboarding... eh... I certainly haven't noticed much of that in GR, but... maybe I'm just missing it?? But then The Rapid... which is the name of our city bus service. How does that fit... like at all? As a (nearly) life long Grand Rapidian this just feels like SUCH a miss! The old Grand Rapids Monopoly is, as I said, a bit dated now, but still SOOOO much more iconic Grand Rapids.

See, when I hear 5th/3rd, and especially when I see it written like that, I always think of it as a fraction: And of course that simplifies to 0.2/0.33333.... which equals 0.6. So a Fifth-Third is actually only 60% effort.

Just like anything, it wouldn't be impossible to hack given you throw enough money and talent at the problem, but I suspect it would be quite difficult. Then you also have to hope that your efforts don't get discovered. And honestly if you're going to hire someone who unethical enough to take lots of money to do this, that same person may see that he could earn a extra chunk of money selling you out to MLB or media. Plus hacking the pitchcom is only half the battle. Next you have to find a way to reliably, secretly, get that pitch data to the player. This could be done with a sound or a light, but I don't think it would take too long for someone to start catching on to this. And you have the danger of your own teammates. This was how the Astro's sign steal scandal broke. Your pitchers might be loyal to the team and not talk about it, but once a pitcher moves to a new team, you think he's going to remain loyal to the old squad? You think he's going to want to face his old squad knowing that they hacked ptichcom and his pitches are going to be known? So, in short: Yes, it probably can be hacked, but the cost and effort would be high, and the risk of getting caught would also be very high.* (*Now the players may not care... I mean look at how none of the players in in Houston Scandal got even a slap on the wrist. They might go along with it for temporary glory. Honestly, not even the front office or manager suffered extensively.)

I dread the day when they start selling naming rights to parts of the stadium: "Welcome back to Sam Bernstein Field inside 5/3 Bank Ballpark where Will Vest has just come out of the BelleTire Bullpen and finished his warmup tosses on Little Ceaser's Mound. As he prepares to pitch Rodriguez steps into the Wallside Windows Batters Box and the 9th inning, brought to you be Meijer, is underway!"

While I think most of us would prefer to go back to yester year and just name it Tiger Stadium or Tiger Park or something like that, those days are long gone. So, purely for the discussion, what brands/companies would you find acceptable? The "rules" for the discussion are these: 1. The company has to be big enough to reasonably be able to afford naming rights. We're not gonna have Bob's Tow Truck Stadium. 2. The company has to be one that might reasonably be considered by Tiger's ownership. So we're not going to have *orn*ub Park (or Papa John's Stadium for that matter either). So, given those rules what options do you have? Meijer Park? GM Stadium?

Wasn't trying to say you did have a problem with it at all, just saying that I have zero problem with it.

I have ZERO problem with the Mariners trying to steal signals. It's part of the game, always has been, always will be.

What we need is for Ford to talk over the name rights. But obviously they wouldn't use the Ford name as Ford Field already exists. So instead they'd use their luxury brand, and so it'd become: Lincoln Park