Old-vs.-New Smackdown

The Chiefs stickers were simple and nice..

Hunt was a great guy and traditionalist..he wouldn’t want some fancy design in his memory..

As for the fumble rule..it’s just another rule/stat that should be fixed..but won’t until it cost someone a game or record..

Just how sports work..

Forget the sack vs. forced fumble ruling. Why is a team not credited with a turnover when they score a safety? It is the ultimate turnover: You get points and the ball!

[quote comment=”30933″]Here’s NFL rules question. I don’t know the answer to the other one about the forced fumble sack thing.

Since we all know that pass interference is a “get the ball at the spot of the foul” flag then what happens if there is interference on a screen play when the receiver is behind the line of scrimmage but is interfered with while the ball is already in the air. I’m sure the answer is obvious to me and I and sure I’ve seen it happen before but I can’t think of what they would do. Anyone care to enlighten?[/quote]

I believe it’s a 15 yard Personal Foul penalty from the line of scrimmage.

OK, can someone please tell the Mets to just stop already? I don’t even know what they should stop, but they should stop something. Seriously.

Shiny: good for the Redskins’ burgundy pants. Bad for the Mets. ESPECIALLY if glitter is in any way involved. Glitter is the worst evil foisted upon mankind in history. Worse than orange and blue combinations, worse than red and gold (which I personally hate, though everyone else’s mileage seems to vary), worse than brown, worse than purple. Glitter deserves its very own level of clothing hell.

[quote comment=”30933″]Here’s NFL rules question. I don’t know the answer to the other one about the forced fumble sack thing.

Since we all know that pass interference is a “get the ball at the spot of the foul” flag then what happens if there is interference on a screen play when the receiver is behind the line of scrimmage but is interfered with while the ball is already in the air. I’m sure the answer is obvious to me and I and sure I’ve seen it happen before but I can’t think of what they would do. Anyone care to enlighten?[/quote]

I believe that you can’t interfere with a receiver behind the line. Since you can bump him five yards in front of the line legally, how could it be illegal to bump behind?

[quote comment=”30938″][quote comment=”30934″][quote comment=”30933″]Here’s NFL rules question. I don’t know the answer to the other one about the forced fumble sack thing.

Since we all know that pass interference is a “get the ball at the spot of the foul” flag then what happens if there is interference on a screen play when the receiver is behind the line of scrimmage but is interfered with while the ball is already in the air. I’m sure the answer is obvious to me and I and sure I’ve seen it happen before but I can’t think of what they would do. Anyone care to enlighten?[/quote]

I believe it’s a 15 yard Personal Foul penalty from the line of scrimmage.[/quote]

But I don’t know if that would make sense either. I know I’ve seen when someone is interfered within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage and the ball was placed at the spot of the foul. I don’t think you can give someone more yards for fouling closer to the line.[/quote]

Well, you can’t make the penalty yardage negative, so it has to be some sort of positive penalty yardage. And, to answer Gregg, you can of course interfere with a player behind the line of scrimmage. You can’t tackle someone before they have the ball, no matter where they are on the field. If you knock a guy, not allowing them to make an attempt on the play, there has to be a penalty called.

[quote comment=”30942″][quote comment=”30938″][quote comment=”30934″][quote comment=”30933″]Here’s NFL rules question. I don’t know the answer to the other one about the forced fumble sack thing.

Since we all know that pass interference is a “get the ball at the spot of the foul” flag then what happens if there is interference on a screen play when the receiver is behind the line of scrimmage but is interfered with while the ball is already in the air. I’m sure the answer is obvious to me and I and sure I’ve seen it happen before but I can’t think of what they would do. Anyone care to enlighten?[/quote]

I believe it’s a 15 yard Personal Foul penalty from the line of scrimmage.[/quote]

But I don’t know if that would make sense either. I know I’ve seen when someone is interfered within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage and the ball was placed at the spot of the foul. I don’t think you can give someone more yards for fouling closer to the line.[/quote]

Well, you can’t make the penalty yardage negative, so it has to be some sort of positive penalty yardage. And, to answer Gregg, you can of course interfere with a player behind the line of scrimmage. You can’t tackle someone before they have the ball, no matter where they are on the field. If you knock a guy, not allowing them to make an attempt on the play, there has to be a penalty called.[/quote]

Well, I know you can’t have negative penalty yards. That’s why I am asking what the penalty would be. 15 doesn’t seem to make sense. 5-10 yards and an automatic first down would, though. But I don’t know the official ruling.

[quote comment=”30942″][quote comment=”30938″][quote comment=”30934″][quote comment=”30933″]Here’s NFL rules question. I don’t know the answer to the other one about the forced fumble sack thing.

Since we all know that pass interference is a “get the ball at the spot of the foul” flag then what happens if there is interference on a screen play when the receiver is behind the line of scrimmage but is interfered with while the ball is already in the air. I’m sure the answer is obvious to me and I and sure I’ve seen it happen before but I can’t think of what they would do. Anyone care to enlighten?[/quote]

I believe it’s a 15 yard Personal Foul penalty from the line of scrimmage.[/quote]

But I don’t know if that would make sense either. I know I’ve seen when someone is interfered within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage and the ball was placed at the spot of the foul. I don’t think you can give someone more yards for fouling closer to the line.[/quote]

Well, you can’t make the penalty yardage negative, so it has to be some sort of positive penalty yardage. And, to answer Gregg, you can of course interfere with a player behind the line of scrimmage. You can’t tackle someone before they have the ball, no matter where they are on the field. If you knock a guy, not allowing them to make an attempt on the play, there has to be a penalty called.[/quote]

My guess is “illegal contact” or holding. Defensive holding is an automatic 1st down, even though it’s only 5 yards.

[quote comment=”30946″]There can be no pass interference at or behind the line of scrimmage, but defensive actions such as tackling a receiver can still result in a 5-yard penalty for defensive holding, if accepted.

from the NFL rulebook[/quote]

Sounds like a good answer to me. Now back to the uni-related discussions. Sorry to interrupt.

During a commercial break during Saturday night’s Falcons-Cowboys game,I switched over to
see the last part of the Nuggets-Knicks game. I
got to see the whole fight. After all ten players
on the floor were tossed from the game and the
substitutes finished the last 1:12 in the game,
I noticed that Nuggets forward Reggie Evans jersey had no name on the back. If you find the MSG video of the game he is clearly visable on the court for the last few seconds and when he
is walking off the court,after the game,with his
back facing the camera.

Question: In the racer back picture, does the Purdue jersey have different colored letters? The PUR looks gold, and the DUE looks black to me.

Question about the Eagles-Giants game: does anyone know why Jeff Garcia was wearing a tight-fitting plastic glove on his throwing hand (maybe just for grip, but it looked like there was something on the back of his hand)? link is the best picture I could find.

[quote comment=”30960″]Question about the Eagles-Giants game: does anyone know why Jeff Garcia was wearing a tight-fitting plastic glove on his throwing hand (maybe just for grip, but it looked like there was something on the back of his hand)? link is the best picture I could find.[/quote]
Here’s my guess. That looks like a blood stain, he has some sort of bandage over the wound and since it’s his throwing hand, they can’t wrap it up with gauze and an ace bandage. The alternative is to use a surgical glove or exam glove, maybe with the fingers cut off, to hold the bandage in place without being bulky. Since QB’s are the only barehanded players anymore I’m surprised they’re not bloodied more often. Like “accidentally” stepped on after a sack.

[quote comment=”30956″]Question: In the racer back picture, does the Purdue jersey have different colored letters? The PUR looks gold, and the DUE looks black to me.[/quote]
That was pointed out last week. The women’s unis have it, the men’s unis do not.

[quote comment=”30964″]The Southern Illinois Salukis have a 100 year patch on their basketball jerseys.

link

All of the Missouri Valley Conference teams have a 100 year patch this season

[quote comment=”30956″]Question: In the racer back picture, does the Purdue jersey have different colored letters? The PUR looks gold, and the DUE looks black to me.[/quote]

Yes, Purdue’s women’s team has two different colored letters on their jerseys. Gold and black on white, white and gold on black and white and black lettering on gold. I think it’s kind of a neat twist that reflects how the lettering is on their “train” logo.

link

[quote comment=”30952″]Paul comments on how one jersey is a re-colored Dallas Stars template, but the Haninge team is obviously using the now old Buffalo Sabres jersey template.[/quote]

Haninge is wearing the white in that picture. Varmdo has the Dallas Stars-esque jerseys.

I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.

I like the colors, but stop grafting everything from Europe(like the absurd Real Salt Lake) and make your own identity.

Here’s my guess on the sack/forced fumble issue, huge guess but it’s all that could come to mind:

When the quarterback is sacked he is tackled behind the line of scrimmage before he can throw a pass. When you force a fumble behind the line of scrimmage it is disrupting the play before the qb can throw a pass. The quarterback is intending to throw a pass and has been stopped from doing so.

It makes no sense to me either but that’s the best explanation I can come up with. Could you, technically get 2 sacks on the same play because of these rules? What if you stripped the qb and he fumbled the ball, he picked the ball up behind where he originally fumbled the ball, tried to throw the ball again and you tackled him for a loss. Would that be 2 sacks?

[quote comment=”30976″]I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.

I like the colors, but stop grafting everything from Europe(like the absurd Real Salt Lake) and make your own identity.[/quote]

You can’t steal a color scheme. Colors don’t technically belong to any team. What if an CFL team started wearing black and red (a very common color scheme to the NFL)? Would you consider that stealing their color sceme?

[quote comment=”30980″][quote comment=”30976″]I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.

I like the colors, but stop grafting everything from Europe(like the absurd Real Salt Lake) and make your own identity.[/quote]

You can’t steal a color scheme. Colors don’t technically belong to any team. What if an CFL team started wearing black and red (a very common color scheme to the NFL)? Would you consider that stealing their color sceme?[/quote]

I agree. If they used a similar jersey pattern, like the maroon body, blue sleeves, you’ve got a case for imitation/theft. But the colors are a good combo. I’ve got nothing against employing those in a different way.

[quote comment=”30976″]I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.[/quote]

uh.. the Phillies? 70s-80s roads. you know, Mike Schmidt and all that.

my first instinct when I saw the Rapids’ unis was “cool, they look like the Phillies.”

In football (both NCAA and NFL), the holder, whether on a field goal or kickoff, is the only player allowed to have his knee on the ground, and the ball is not dead when in that player’s possession. However, once that player ceases to be an anything but a holder, (in the case of a fumble or muffed snap), the ball is dead if that player’s knee touches the ground while in possession of the ball.

[quote comment=”30991″]In football (both NCAA and NFL), the holder, whether on a field goal or kickoff, is the only player allowed to have his knee on the ground, and the ball is not dead when in that player’s possession. However, once that player ceases to be an anything but a holder, (in the case of a fumble or muffed snap), the ball is dead if that player’s knee touches the ground while in possession of the ball.[/quote]

An NFHS rules change this year allowed a holder to retrieve an errant snap and put his knee back down without being down. I don’t know if that’s the same in the NCAA and NFL, but the high schools, at least, have a clue about this particular situation.

Here’s the deal, you can’t have pass interference behind the line of scrimmage…if a QB throws a screen pass, the best defense is to tackle the receiver before the ball gets there, because he can be hit behind the line of scrimmage.

As for the sack/forced fumble thing, you can’t penalize a defender just because the quarterback fumbles the ball. Imagine needing one sack for the record, and you hit the QB, but he fumbles, so you don’t get the record. That’s the thought behind that.

Frank

There was some talk about the Rapids’ move a few days ago. This is the second time they’ve ditched a color scheme in 11 years.

It isn’t just the pair of colors, but the way they’re used. If Rapids had gone hooped with those colors, it would be a whole different look and less of a rip-off of the Brit teams.

The Rapids started with link that was tweaked a bit, then inexplicably switched to link of link.

Now they’re going to the link or link look.

Green and white to black and blue to sky and claret along with solid to vertical stripe to contrasting body and sleeves – lots of continuity there.

If they wanted to copy a Euro team, they should have knocked off link and kept the great original colors.

BTW, I had hoped that Ska would have something like link, but I’m just an old geek about ska.

[quote comment=”30992″][quote comment=”30991″]In football (both NCAA and NFL), the holder, whether on a field goal or kickoff, is the only player allowed to have his knee on the ground, and the ball is not dead when in that player’s possession. However, once that player ceases to be an anything but a holder, (in the case of a fumble or muffed snap), the ball is dead if that player’s knee touches the ground while in possession of the ball.[/quote]

Actually, the ball wouldn’t be dead until somebody touched that player down right. The only time a play is dead when a player’s knee touches the ground is when you knee the ball on a kickoff or when the quarterback kneels the ball. Or so I thought. If a receiver caught the ball, took a knee and no one touched him wouldn’t he be free to run again?[/quote]

That is true with the NFL rules, not the NCAA rules.

Is it an NFL “rule” or simply a “recommendation” that 2 players with the same first inital and last name wear their full names on their back? I ask because Brad Johnson and Bethel Johnson of the Vikings do not. I think Brad just has “Johnson”, while Bethel has “B. Johnson”.

That old hockey team at the top of the column reminds me of link

[quote comment=”30953″]During a commercial break during Saturday night’s Falcons-Cowboys game,I switched over to
see the last part of the Nuggets-Knicks game. I
got to see the whole fight. After all ten players
on the floor were tossed from the game and the
substitutes finished the last 1:12 in the game,
I noticed that Nuggets forward Reggie Evans jersey had no name on the back. If you find the MSG video of the game he is clearly visable on the court for the last few seconds and when he
is walking off the court,after the game,with his
back facing the camera.[/quote]

The letters were falling off his jersey one by one during the game. If not for the fight, it might have been the only highlight of the game that would’ve made Sportscenter.

[quote comment=”31016″][quote comment=”30996″]Here’s the deal, you can’t have pass interference behind the line of scrimmage…if a QB throws a screen pass, the best defense is to tackle the receiver before the ball gets there, because he can be hit behind the line of scrimmage.

Frank[/quote]

You can’t tackle a player in the backfield before he catches the pass. That’s defensive holding and defensive holding can be called in the backfield. It would the same thing as a defensive lineman tackling an offensive lineman. You can engage the player behind the line and it’s a legal play, but you can’t tackle him.[/quote]

But you can hit him hard enough to make him lose his balance or fall over without tackling him…yes wrapping up and tackling him would probably be holding, but you can make contact with the intended receiver

[quote comment=”30980″][quote comment=”30976″]I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.

I like the colors, but stop grafting everything from Europe(like the absurd Real Salt Lake) and make your own identity.[/quote]

You can’t steal a color scheme. Colors don’t technically belong to any team. What if an CFL team started wearing black and red (a very common color scheme to the NFL)? Would you consider that stealing their color sceme?[/quote]

I don’t consider it “stealing” to take a colour scheme from another team in a different league, but that might be because I’m a Canuck and a lot of CFL schemes do match up with NFL teams. For example; The link have Rams colours, the link are in Packers green and yellow, the link are in Steelers black and gold, with brutally ugly side panels, and the now defunct link had Falcons-esque threads.

[quote comment=”30996″]Frank Mercogliano said:
Here’s the deal, you can’t have pass interference behind the line of scrimmage…if a QB throws a screen pass, the best defense is to tackle the receiver before the ball gets there, because he can be hit behind the line of scrimmage.[/quote]

How many times do I have to read this today? The question was answered in post 14, and much more effectively than most of the ones that followed. Let’s try to read through the comments first before double-posting, especially when the information posted is wrong. (See Mark M in post 60.)

I think Pat has the best summation of the fumble/sack rule in post 39. It’s probably something from the player’s association; the more sacks the defenders have, the more money they get paid. Kind of like the save in baseball… coming in with a three run lead in the ninth should not be conidered a save—it’s a gimme. But, the PA will never allow a rule change because it would hurt statistics and hurt salaries.

OR, the fumble/sack rule is as asinine as it sounds and should be changed accordingly.

Since Gilbert Arenas scored 60 wearing link, do you think he is going to want to play in them all the time?

I hope not.

About those numbered stocking hats that have been seen, I think it’s done so that it can be kept straight which equipment goes to what player. I’ve seen in college where t-shirt, sweatshirts, even those skullcaps, as well as their shoulder pads have numbers on them. Also interesting note, normally the number on the players equipment is the payer uniform number, but in college where there is 100 some players, and all of them need equipment for practice, you can see a player with a number like 11 or 124 printed on their equipment. Now I’m not an equipment manager, it’s just an observation that I have made.

It’s too bad the Arkansas Razorbacks don’t have racer-back jerseys

[quote comment=”31026″]Since Gilbert Arenas scored 60 wearing link, do you think he is going to want to play in them all the time?

I hope not.[/quote]

oooooooooooooooooooooo those are VERY awful.

The scanned picture on the top of today’s blog is flopped in the wrong orientation but not a mistake by John E. but rather the book publisher.

The cursive letter “V” in Victoria has the flourish at the end not at the beginning like pictured here:

link

Speaking of the NBA, fines and suspensions have been handed down by the league for the Nuggets-Knicks brawl: link

I couldn’t let this go without pointing out this gem from Mardy Collins of the Knicks:

“I don’t regret fouling him as hard as I did, I just regret that the whole thing escalated the way it did,” Collins said Monday. “I was out there competing and I didn’t want the guy to get a layup and I was basically trying to stop him from going in the air. That’s why I fouled him that hard, so he wouldn’t get hurt.”

Wow…do athletes even listen to themselves talk?

[quote comment=”30937″]OK, can someone please tell the Mets to just stop already? I don’t even know what they should stop, but they should stop something. Seriously.

Shiny: good for the Redskins’ burgundy pants. Bad for the Mets. ESPECIALLY if glitter is in any way involved. Glitter is the worst evil foisted upon mankind in history. Worse than orange and blue combinations, worse than red and gold (which I personally hate, though everyone else’s mileage seems to vary), worse than brown, worse than purple. Glitter deserves its very own level of clothing hell.[/quote]

You, sir, apparently have never seen link beautiful pairing of orange and blue.

[quote comment=”31041″]Speaking of the NBA, fines and suspensions have been handed down by the league for the Nuggets-Knicks brawl: link

I couldn’t let this go without pointing out this gem from Mardy Collins of the Knicks:

“I don’t regret fouling him as hard as I did, I just regret that the whole thing escalated the way it did,” Collins said Monday. “I was out there competing and I didn’t want the guy to get a layup and I was basically trying to stop him from going in the air. That’s why I fouled him that hard, so he wouldn’t get hurt.”

Wow…do athletes even listen to themselves talk?[/quote]

It makes perfect sense. If the guy goes in the air, there’s a much better chance of him getting hurt. What’s not to understand? Not defending the fight or anything, but he’s right about this.

Did anyone notice in the second picture of the Haninge hockey team that due to sponsor advertisements on the front of their jerseys, the Alternate Captain’s “A” is freakishly low?

The game isn’t until Wednesday, but if Paul didn’t like the D-III football title game, I’m sure he’s extra excited that Washington is playing LSU. PURPLE HEAVEN~!

[quote comment=”31039″]Paul you’ve opened a can of worms by pointing out the idiocy of some NFL rules…

Speaking of Gilbert Arenas’s 60 point performance, are those black and gold Wizards jerseys meant to be worn both on the road and at home? I noticed that the Lakers pulled out their white jerseys as their normal gold home jerseys would probably be too similar. Did the Lakers do this to accomodate the Wizards or were the Lakers already going to wear the whites so the Wizards decided to wear their alternates?

No matter which is true, the NBA and it’s uniform policies is starting to remind me of the NFL.[/quote]

The Lakers always wear their whites at home on Sundays, so it wasn’t the case of them accomodating the Wizards yesterday.

[quote comment=”31059″][quote comment=”31021″][quote comment=”30976″]I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.

I like the colors, but stop grafting everything from Europe(like the absurd Real Salt Lake) and make your own identity.[/quote]
I like the new unis for a couple of reasons.
1. The color scheme is very nice
2. It combines 2 other denver uni colors (the light blue of the nuggets and the maroon of the Avs).
I don’t view it as glomming off of Europe in this case. Real Salt Lake and DC United both have to go.[/quote]

The Real and United prefixes and suffixes are commonplace among all soccer teams, alot of time just in other languages ala Eintracht in German means United and there is multiple teams in the varying levels of German soccer that have that prefix, Eintracht Frankfurt, Eintracht Bad Kreuznach, Eintracht Braunschweig, and a lot more. Saying that DC United is a rip off is like saying any team with FC in the name is a rip off, its just completly untrue[/quote]

But Real is a Spanish thing because the King chartered them, Real=Royal. Some non-royal rich guy started the Salt Lake City Soccer Team.

Real is pushing it.

[quote comment=”31048″]link[/quote]

Merry Christmas, Kenny !!!!!!!

[quote comment=”31019″][quote comment=”30996″]As for the sack/forced fumble thing, you can’t penalize a defender just because the quarterback fumbles the ball. Imagine needing one sack for the record, and you hit the QB, but he fumbles, so you don’t get the record. That’s the thought behind that.[/quote]

There’s no way that’s the thinking behind that. First of all, rules have nothing to do with setting records. More importantly, what if the QB doesn’t fall down? How is it a sack if he fumbles without being tackled? How is it “penalizing” the defender if you don’t credit a sack in that situation? It’s total bullshit.[/quote]

But it is the same thing as a sack. The quarterback had gone back to pass. His attempt to do so was stopped. The offensive team is going to lose yardage on the play most likely. If you don’t credit a sack (by NFL rules) you would have to consider it a running play, which it wasn’t.

[quote comment=”31063″]But Real is a Spanish thing because the King chartered them, Real=Royal. Some non-royal rich guy started the Salt Lake City Soccer Team.

Real is pushing it.[/quote]

Absolutely. Unless there’s some secret Spanish-speaking King of link involved, the title’s really silly, as an English-speaking monarch would use “Royal”. But since there are apparently no legit royals involved, regardless of language, they may do better as “Delusional Salt Lake”.

“United/Eintrachten” makes sense in the Euro sense where the clubs were founded by organizations that were involved in multiple sports, like soccer and cricket or rowing. In the MLS sense, that doesn’t apply. “DC Soccer” would be a bit redundant, but it’s more truthful – – oh, I guess I see why they chose that name for that location.

Even “FC” here is a bit odd as we don’t refer to the game as football. “SC” would be more appropriate.

[quote comment=”31071″][quote comment=”31063″]But Real is a Spanish thing because the King chartered them, Real=Royal. Some non-royal rich guy started the Salt Lake City Soccer Team.

Real is pushing it.[/quote]

Absolutely. Unless there’s some secret Spanish-speaking King of link involved, the title’s really silly, as an English-speaking monarch would use “Royal”. But since there are apparently no legit royals involved, regardless of language, they may do better as “Delusional Salt Lake”.

“United/Eintrachten” makes sense in the Euro sense where the clubs were founded by organizations that were involved in multiple sports, like soccer and cricket or rowing. In the MLS sense, that doesn’t apply. “DC Soccer” would be a bit redundant, but it’s more truthful – – oh, I guess I see why they chose that name for that location.

Even “FC” here is a bit odd as we don’t refer to the game as football. “SC” would be more appropriate.[/quote]

“AFC” even better though.

Why are people still moaning about team colours? Can’t be stolen, nuff said.

I was just watching SportsCenter and caught Joey Harrington wearing a Nike Cold Gear shirt underneath his pads. He can’t do that! Best shot I could find. link

[quote comment=”31028″]About those numbered stocking hats that have been seen, I think it’s done so that it can be kept straight which equipment goes to what player. I’ve seen in college where t-shirt, sweatshirts, even those skullcaps, as well as their shoulder pads have numbers on them. Also interesting note, normally the number on the players equipment is the payer uniform number, but in college where there is 100 some players, and all of them need equipment for practice, you can see a player with a number like 11 or 124 printed on their equipment. Now I’m not an equipment manager, it’s just an observation that I have made.[/quote]
I would guess that the hats are standard equipment for all NFL teams. I can tell you’ve I seen the Redskins wear them at practice, but I can’t recall ever seeing them worn at games. The design is exactly the same as the ones we see in the KC photo; I just don’t think they’re seen very often.

[quote comment=”31081″]Holy crap man, what’s up with the NBA, another brawl, sheesh. That league is embarrassing.[/quote]

“I went to MSG for a basketball game, and a hockey fight broke out.”

Was that an Avs-Rangers game, or a Nuggets-Knicks game? :o)

[quote comment=”31083″][quote comment=”31070″][quote comment=”31064″]
I’ve not followed the CFL in maybe 2 decades, but didn’t the Ottawa team used to be called the ‘roughriders’. If I recall there were two teams called roughriders in a 6 team league?[/quote]

There was and there wasn’t. The Saskatchewan Roughriders are slightly different than the Ottawa Rough Riders. However, since semantics are lost over time, the CFL was ridicules for having 8 teams and two teams with the same team name.[/quote]
Thanks Teebz,

But to make a long story short, the Ottawa Franchise that was started in 1889 is now defunct? That is very sad!![/quote]

The Renegades were supposed to be called the Rough Riders once again, but it was thought that with a new franchise, a new beginning might be in order. That, and the idiotic Liebermans that owned the new franchise were never about tradition or respecting the league.

They almost had the league agreeing to a Mardi Gras night. The problem? They were going to throw beads to the women in the end zone stands if they… you get the idea. That idea was crushed quickly.

[quote comment=”31084″]

They almost had the league agreeing to a Mardi Gras night. The problem? They were going to throw beads to the women in the end zone stands if they… you get the idea. That idea was crushed quickly.[/quote]

i understand that mardi gras night was supposed to be held in conjunction with the “hot chicks get in free” ticket promotion

[quote comment=”31087″][quote comment=”31084″]

They almost had the league agreeing to a Mardi Gras night. The problem? They were going to throw beads to the women in the end zone stands if they… you get the idea. That idea was crushed quickly.[/quote]

i understand that mardi gras night was supposed to be held in conjunction with the “hot chicks get in free” ticket promotion[/quote]

That is true. They also said, although unconfirmed, that if you were from a girl from an Ontario university and had your student ID with you, you’d get in free if you wanted an end zone ticket.

The Liebermans are slime. You can quote me on that. I don’t mind being on record for that quote. I’m sure 99% of Ottawa and CFL fans would agree with me.

[quote comment=”31090″]
That is true. They also said, although unconfirmed, that if you were a girl from an Ontario university and had your student ID with you, you’d get in free if you wanted an end zone ticket.

The Liebermans are slime. You can quote me on that. I don’t mind being on record for that quote. I’m sure 99% of Ottawa and CFL fans would agree with me.[/quote]

Ugh… speed-reading makes for crappy editing.

re: Football rules

I believe the commenter who said your best defense against a screen pass is to tackle the receiver is correct. i don’t believe PI can be called on a pass that doesn’t cross the line of scrimmage. the play action pass sometimes results in an eligible receiver getting crushed in the backfield (the halfback, usually) and there is no penalty. I think the reason this doesn’t come up more often is that screen passes by design keep the receiver away from the defender because of misdirection.

I think the rules about the sack/forced fumble make sense, practically. I’d say it’s not often that a QB fumble in the pocket is forced by anything other than a hard hit. I can’t recall ever seeing (not that it hasn’t happened) a QB forced to fumble on a play that wouldn’t otherwise have been a sack. I think it’s smart to recognize that sacks sometimes cause fumbles. The only potential hole: if a QB has the ball smacked out of his hands without being tackled, hit on the arm, or otherwise molested… I wonder if the official scorer would record a sack.

[quote comment=”31082″][quote comment=”31081″]Holy crap man, what’s up with the NBA, another brawl, sheesh. That league is embarrassing.[/quote]

“I went to MSG for a basketball game, and a hockey fight broke out.”

Was that an Avs-Rangers game, or a Nuggets-Knicks game? :o)[/quote]

Teebz, the Rangers don’t have anyone who can or will throw hands like that. Hollweg and Orr are OK – but lose more than they win. Besides, don’t you wish someone – ANYONE – went over and punched Isiah Thomas in his ever present shit-eating grin?

both the ottawa rough riders, and the saskatchewan roughriders were named after the roughriders that were in the spanish war. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) Teddy Roosevelt was in that group. The reason they were spelt different is there were two different ways that the roughriders were tough to be spelled. Originally both teams were red and black back in the old days 1930’s. The reason Saskatchewan became green and white was there was a complete set of green and white jerseys at a thrift store in decent shape and it was time for saskatchewan to replace their old ones. basically it was just a coincidence. Thats the story and I’m sticking to it.

[quote comment=”31099″]
Teebz, the Rangers don’t have anyone who can or will throw hands like that. Hollweg and Orr are OK – but lose more than they win. Besides, don’t you wish someone – ANYONE – went over and punched Isiah Thomas in his ever present shit-eating grin?[/quote]

Well, considering how Isiah was part of the big, bad Pistons teams, I’m not surprised that no one took a run at him.

Besides… if his team fought as hard on the court as they did in that fight, they might win more than 25 games this season.

[quote comment=”31100″][quote comment=”31098″]

dilbert719, I have to say one thing about glitter: it’s fun to use glitter from time to time. When I was a bit younger, I used to put it on my, shall we say, decolletage, when I went to a club. I also had glittery barrettes. Glitters for unis? There, I agree with you. No good can come from gilding the lily.[/quote]

Minna, did you actually just use the word “decolletage”? I think I had an infection in my decolletage once – a shot of penicillin cleared it right up…[/quote]

Man, Banker B., good thing I wasn’t drinking any coffee when I read this because I would have spit it up over my decolletage. I was trying to be all lady-like and shit—guess I failed, huh?

[quote comment=”31101″]both the ottawa rough riders, and the saskatchewan roughriders were named after the roughriders that were in the spanish war. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) Teddy Roosevelt was in that group. The reason they were spelt different is there were two different ways that the roughriders were tough to be spelled. Originally both teams were red and black back in the old days 1930’s. The reason Saskatchewan became green and white was there was a complete set of green and white jerseys at a thrift store in decent shape and it was time for saskatchewan to replace their old ones. basically it was just a coincidence. Thats the story and I’m sticking to it.[/quote]

Nice fiction, but here’s the real story.

They changed their name to the Regina Roughriders in 1923 and officially to the Saskatchewan Roughriders in 1950. The formation of what became the CFL brought them into the same league as the similarly named, but differently spelled, Ottawa Rough Riders. The team name comes from a Northwest Mounted Police force (based in Regina) who were called Roughriders based on the fact that they rode horses while on duty.

Ottawa, however, played from 1925 on in the colours of Teddy Roosevelt’s regiment in the Spanish-American War, which, with the date of the renaming, suggests that the name comes from the war. Since Teddy’s regiment was called the “Rough Riders”, the two-worded name was kept, unlike their Saskatchewan counterparts who had a one-word team name.

Critics and pundits alike did not know that the teams historically belonged to separate leagues, which were not truly merged until 1954 in the newly-formed Canadian Football League where only professional teams could win the Grey Cup. As such, they were allowed to keep their long-standing nicknames.

[quote comment=”31108″]Every NFL team wears one or two of three or four on feild style hats. Some teams in their merchandis section of their websites actually have an “on feild section” which allows to see (and purchase) the styles a team wears on the sideline. They usually have the white “On field authentic” logo rather then just the NFL sheild, but there are some exceptions.

I have always pictured that most teams simply had 60 or seventy of whatever styles (Hats, sweatshirts, T’s etc.) they selected, and the players grab what they want in the locker room before the game. Afterwords, they would be collected, cleaned and reused. It jsut seem slike the most efficient way to handle it.

It appears on the Favre picture that the Packers added “aftermarket” personalization to a “stock” hat. Other the the #4 it is 14 dollar skull cap that you can get for any NFL team. I think the Chiefs picture is from last year, by the way.[/quote]

By the way, the last season the Yankees added player numbers above the mlb logo to the blue majestic fleece shirt with the logo on the neck.

CFL stuff – One thing that bothers me about ESPN is that back in its infancy they used to show the CFL and Australian rules f’ball like around the clock. It was their only game. Now that they’ve got NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL etc games they barely give the CFL a mention at Grey Cup time compared to a week of buildup like they used to. It just bugs me that they shun the only guys that would give them anything to show back in the day.
Thanks for listening.

Regarding the sack/fumble rule:

I don’t have the wording of the specific NFL or NCAA rule to back this up, but there is a reasonable explanation for swatting the ball to be considered a sack. Anytime a defensive player stops forward progress of an offensive player, they are credited with a tackle. This applies to a normal tackle, forcing a player out of bounds, or forcing a fumble without actually bringing the offensive player to the ground. Therefore, swatting the ball from the QB, even without tackling him or even touching any part of his body, is considered a tackle (and hence a sack when behind the line of scrimmage).

Incidentally, this is related to “team sacks”, in which the team but no individual player is credited with a sack. This most often occurs when a QB runs out of bounds behind the line of scrimmage while attempting a pass, but is not forced out of bounds by any individual player.

[quote comment=”31117″]
I am glad to have you and the other puckheads on this site because it really sparks my interest in the sport.[/quote]

Minna, you live in one of the hockey hotbeds in the United States. How does that not spark your interest? :o)

[quote comment=”31063″][quote comment=”31059″][quote comment=”31021″][quote comment=”30976″]I’m not sure how I feel about Colorado and MLS “borrowing” another european soccer tradition. The new Rapids colors, claret and sky blue, are quite common in English soccer, link and link being the two most prominent teams. Yet they have never been used as a scheme in American sports, as far as I can tell. The old Mighty Ducks maroon and teal is probably the closest.

I like the colors, but stop grafting everything from Europe(like the absurd Real Salt Lake) and make your own identity.[/quote]
I like the new unis for a couple of reasons.
1. The color scheme is very nice
2. It combines 2 other denver uni colors (the light blue of the nuggets and the maroon of the Avs).
I don’t view it as glomming off of Europe in this case. Real Salt Lake and DC United both have to go.[/quote]

The Real and United prefixes and suffixes are commonplace among all soccer teams, alot of time just in other languages ala Eintracht in German means United and there is multiple teams in the varying levels of German soccer that have that prefix, Eintracht Frankfurt, Eintracht Bad Kreuznach, Eintracht Braunschweig, and a lot more. Saying that DC United is a rip off is like saying any team with FC in the name is a rip off, its just completly untrue[/quote]

But Real is a Spanish thing because the King chartered them, Real=Royal. Some non-royal rich guy started the Salt Lake City Soccer Team.

Real is pushing it.[/quote]

Both are wrongly used.

Real = Royal. Word is ony added after gaining patronage from the King of Spain. See: Real Avila, Real Betis, Real Madrid, Real Union, Real Zaragoza.

The story behind United is a bit different:

Any club that uses the term United probably got that name from an actual “Union” of two other clubs. A few examples:
Newcastle East End FC + Newcastle West End FC = Newcastle United FC (1892)
Newton Health FC + JH Davies private squad = Manchester United FC (1902)
Frankfurter FV (already a union of Kickers and Viktoria) + Frankfurter Turngemeinde (a gymnastics club) = TuS Eintracht Frankfurt (1920)

DC United was founded with that name in 1996. I remember some foggy explanation about how DC is a union of land from MD and VA, hence the name… but no one bought it. They just used the name cause it sounds professional

[quote comment=”31092″][quote comment=”31086″][quote comment=”31081″]Holy crap man, what’s up with the NBA, another brawl, sheesh. That league is embarrassing.[/quote]
I second that. I used to work for an NBA team, and this thug stuff is getting out of control.

Speaking of soccer unis, just had to say that in my opinion, linkhas the best “kit”, as those Europeans call them.[/quote]

I’ve always been partial to Liverpool.

link

Those Ajax kits remind me a little of Arsenal: link

Workington had great uniforms too (here’s the early 1970s incarnation when they were still playing the upper level leagues): link

Just found this great collection of roster pictures of Division 1, 2, 3, and 4 clubs in the 1970s: link

Agreed – Liverpool and Ajax have great standard kits, but much like everyone have pretty bad alternates – link, link (note the wicked asymmetry!).

Best standard kit – link
Of course, their alternate is a link (but thankfully never worn)
The link is decent – especially cause they’ve done tremendously wearing it in Europe!

[quote comment=”31116″]Regarding the sack/fumble rule:

I don’t have the wording of the specific NFL or NCAA rule to back this up, but there is a reasonable explanation for swatting the ball to be considered a sack. Anytime a defensive player stops forward progress of an offensive player, they are credited with a tackle. This applies to a normal tackle, forcing a player out of bounds, or forcing a fumble without actually bringing the offensive player to the ground. Therefore, swatting the ball from the QB, even without tackling him or even touching any part of his body, is considered a tackle (and hence a sack when behind the line of scrimmage).

Incidentally, this is related to “team sacks”, in which the team but no individual player is credited with a sack. This most often occurs when a QB runs out of bounds behind the line of scrimmage while attempting a pass, but is not forced out of bounds by any individual player.[/quote]
You’re half right – tackle/sack for stripping the QB, but no mention of team sacks – at least according to the NCAA. I’m looking at a copy of their 2003 manual (I tried to find a later version, but ncaa.org is down at the moment) and this is the section on sacks. (I don’t know if this answers everyone’s question and it’s possible the NFL has a different interpretation. But take it for what it’s worth.)

[quote]OFFICIAL 2003 FOOTBALL STATISTICS RULES 10
PASS SACKS: If the defensive team is credited with the sack of a player who is attempting to pass, the same principles outlined above again apply. A player credited with a solo pass sack on the play is also credited with a solo tackle and a solo tackle for loss.

In the case of two players getting credit for an assisted pass sack (with no player being credited for a solo pass sack), each player would also be credited with an assisted tackle and an assisted tackle for loss.

If a potential passer fumbles the ball before contact by the defense, no pass sack is credited to any individual player. Also, lost yardage on pass sacks is given entirely to the player with a solo pass sack and lost yardage is split equally between two players with assisted pass sacks. If the yardage lost is an odd number, then the yardage split shall be at the discretion of the official game statistician.

In determining pass sacks, take into onsideration a case where a quarterback or another offensive player makes an apparent attempt to pass while being chased and goes out-of-bounds behind the line of scrimmage.

In that instance, give the solo pass sack, solo tackle and solo tackle for loss to the primary chasing player who, in the opinion of the official
game statistician, caused the passer to go out-of-bounds. For plays that end either on the line of scrimmage or beyond, there is no pass sack credited but rather it is considered a rushing play. There can be no pass sack without loss of yardage.

When a passer is pressured into throwing an intentionally grounded pass, the defensive player who exerted the pressure is credited with a solo pass sack, a solo tackle, and a solo tackle for loss for the yards lost to the spot of the foul. The passer is not charged with a pass attempt, but is charged with a rush attempt and yards lost to the spot of the foul. The ensuing penalty is loss of down at the spot of the foul. Also charge the offensive team with a penalty for no yards.

When a player who is back to pass has the ball stripped from his grasp prior to his arm going forward, the defensive player who strips the ball is credited with a forced fumble, a solo pass sack and a solo tackle, and a solo tackle for loss for the yards lost to the spot of the fumble recovery. The passer is not charged with a pass attempt, but is charged with a rush attempt and yards lost to the spot of the fumble recovery.

The determination as to whether a ball that is stripped from a passer is a fumble or an incomplete pass will be made by the official on the field.

In any case of intentional grounding, also charge the offensive team with a penalty for no yards. [/quote]

OK, didn’t have enough time to read through all the posts, BUT, considering the sack and forced fumble bit, this is the scenario I’m thinking of why the sack is rewarded:

QB is behind the line of scrimmage, defensive player comes up to tackle him and lays him out. Two milli-seconds before QB hits the ground, he drops the ball. But if we didn’t count forced fumbles as sacks, in a way the QB’s mistake takes away a statistic from the defensive player. Why should defensive player be penalized?

I guess by my logic I would only be in favor of the sack being awarded if the forced fumble came as a result of in the act of tackling, not hand swiping. But that’s so subjective, that definition wouldn’t be worth crap.

But since a “sack” is only an arbitrary statistic with a precise definition, one that includes forced fumbles on the QB, why are we complaining? (It would be like complaining that “Why do they only count yards rushing from the line of scrimmage, even though the running back really starts with the ball in the backfield?” Well, it’s just how they’ve defined yards rushing, that’s all).

I guess I’m saying that just because the definition of sack doesn’t fit to what 95% of what typical sacks end up being (clean tackles of the QB), so be it. Just make up a new statistic that doesn’t include the forced fumbles along with the tackles. Call it Sack+ (borrowing 1970’s gameshow convention, how they added a “plus” to new editions of the same show, like Password Plus, 3 Strikes+ from The Price is Right, etc.)

My view on the sack/fumble issue…I think we are looking at the term tackling in the wrong context. We are thinking of it as knocking the ball carrier to the ground, but that is not always the case. A defender gets credit for a tackle if they push the ball carrier out of bounds, or, at times, are simply around the carrier when he decides to go out of bounds. So I think a tackle should be regarded as a defender preventing the ball from being advanced any further down the field. With this idea in mind it is easy to see how knocking the ball out of the QB’s hand would be a sack and tackle…the opposing player has stopped the ball carrier from gaining anymore yards and at the same time caused a fumble, good for him, chalk up the stats, time for the next play.

[quote comment=”31135″][quote comment=”31125″]The Denver University team also has a turkey for a mascot, although I think it looks better than the ones pictured above. . . . [/quote]

The DU nickname is Pioneers. The official name for that bird is the link. It replaced the politically incorrect link, created by Walt Disney, in 1999.[/quote]
Whtat makes link, politically incorrect? Are they afraid of offending the modernday pioneers?

if you re-read the wording of the sack/fumble rule, it depends on where the ball ends up. if a fumble is recovered by the offense and advanced beyond the line of scrimmage, there is no sack.

so it would seem that as long as the qb was dropping back to pass, and the ball was downed in the backfield before a pass was attempted, the criteria for a sack are met.

I meant basketball – my fingers have a speech impediment. What the hell is nasketball..unless it’s “nasty basketball” – but the Knicks conversation ended already…

[quote comment=”31084″][quote comment=”31083″][quote comment=”31070″][quote comment=”31064″]
I’ve not followed the CFL in maybe 2 decades, but didn’t the Ottawa team used to be called the ‘roughriders’. If I recall there were two teams called roughriders in a 6 team league?[/quote]

There was and there wasn’t. The Saskatchewan Roughriders are slightly different than the Ottawa Rough Riders. However, since semantics are lost over time, the CFL was ridicules for having 8 teams and two teams with the same team name.[/quote]
Thanks Teebz,

But to make a long story short, the Ottawa Franchise that was started in 1889 is now defunct? That is very sad!![/quote]

The Renegades were supposed to be called the Rough Riders once again, but it was thought that with a new franchise, a new beginning might be in order. That, and the idiotic Liebermans that owned the new franchise were never about tradition or respecting the league.

They almost had the league agreeing to a Mardi Gras night. The problem? They were going to throw beads to the women in the end zone stands if they… you get the idea. That idea was crushed quickly.[/quote]

I agree that the Gliebermans, not Liebermans, are scum, but the real reason the Renegades weren’t called the Rough Riders is that former Rough Riders owner Horn Chen kept the name when the team folded the first time and wanted a ridiculous amount of money to release the name back to the CFL.

From Rovell/CNBC:

Horrendous Weekend For Brand Jordan:

Michael Jordan’s Nike brand took a big hit on Saturday. First, we saw the face of Jordan — Denver Nuggets’ Carmelo Anthony — fighting at the end of the game in Madison Square Garden, eventually landing a punch (if you could call it that) on Mardy Collins of the New York Knicks.

Then, we saw the postgame interview of Terrell Owens after he spit on Falcons cornerback DeAngelo Hall in the Cowboys victory over Atlanta. Owens admitted he spit at Hall, trying to explain to the NFL Network’s Rich Eisen why Hall deserved it, in his Brand Jordan Jumpman headband.

How Owens is still a Brand Jordan spokesperson is beyond me, though I do find it interesting that if you go to the website, he’s no longer listed as a member of Team Jordan.

As for Anthony, I think he’s replaced Kobe Bryant as the most conflicted athlete in sports marketing. Does corporate America take a chance on Anthony?

One minute he’s associated with an extortion plot and “Stop Snitching” and the next minute he’s donating $4.5 million to Syracuse and funding a youth development center in Baltimore.

Will the real Carmelo Anthony please stand up?

While Anthony — who is the NBA’s leading per game scorer this year — should be considered in among the league’s most marketable, there’s a sense that he’s a much more risky investment than a LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, and Saturday night certainly didn’t help. Neither will the 10 or so games he’ll now be sitting out.

link

White-over-whites for the bengals. Also, Suzy Kolber just did a little speil with a nice closeup of those nasty, horrible shoes.

they just said that chat johnson was fined and the uni police for the nfl said if he wore him they’d pull him from the game, never heard that before…..

Paul check out these old little league unifroms from the Pittsburgh 14th ward Giants(socks chekc um out)

link

#68 for the bengals… a defensive lineman is wearing pants from the old style bengals uniforms. they don’t have the white stripes at the top of them.

[quote comment=”31141″][quote comment=”31120″][quote comment=”31119″][quote comment=”31117″]
I am glad to have you and the other puckheads on this site because it really sparks my interest in the sport.[/quote]

Minna, you live in one of the hockey hotbeds in the United States. How does that not spark your interest? :o)[/quote]

Um, well, uh, I have no excuse, really. None. I will now go beat myself upon my decolletage in remorse.

(Hangs head in shame, tries to cover).

What i meant to say, was, ‘You keep my interest in hockey whetted for more.’

Yeah.

In all seriousness, I thought it was too violent until I dated a guy whon only liked hockey (and malls). He showed me some of the finer points, and I realized what a great sport it is.[/quote]

Now that you’ve been exposed to it – like a woman’s “decolletage” at a club – hockey is really a neat mix of grace, athleticism and downright toughness. That’s why I love it so much.

Besides, you see more bench clearing brawls in baseball and nasketball (and U. of Miami football) than you do in hockey anymore. [/quote]

Yeah, I agree. Football and nastyball are more violent—on and off the court/field. I think if more people who didn’t like hockey actually watched it with someone who knew what he/she was talking about, the uninitiated would come away with a healthy appreciation for the game.

p.s. Now that decolletage has caught on, let’s see what esoteric word I can slide into the conversation tomorrow while still remaining (somewhat) on point.

[quote comment=”31103″]
What’s a real woman’s take on keeping your eyes “above the horizon” or “on your own paper”? I mean if you’re going to decorate the ‘decolletage’ with glitter, spray paint, road signs, what have you – how am i not supposed to look?[/quote]

I thought you might like another “real woman’s” opinion (or is this like being a “true Yankee?” do I have to win a championship as a woman, or can I just be on the payroll?). I might be able to help.

As with many Mars/Venus arguments, this has everything to do with context. If Minna and I are out at a club and are wearing tight shirts or have glittered our “decolletage”, an appreciative glance is welcomed (and can helpfully denote interest). Points awarded for subtlety here. Overeager is never attractive.

However, If I am in a business meeting discussing profit margins, things need to stay “above board” (no matter what I am wearing).

[quote comment=”31171″]If Minna and I are out at a club and are wearing tight shirts or have glittered our “decolletage”, an appreciative glance is welcomed (and can helpfully denote interest). Points awarded for subtlety here. Overeager is never attractive.

However, If I am in a business meeting discussing profit margins, things need to stay “above board” (no matter what I am wearing).[/quote]

Hi, Tessa. My name is Teebz. Glad to have you aboard. The hockey wing, unlike these other sports, has an entire section devoted to women. :o)

[quote comment=”31173″][quote comment=”31171″]If Minna and I are out at a club and are wearing tight shirts or have glittered our “decolletage”, an appreciative glance is welcomed (and can helpfully denote interest). Points awarded for subtlety here. Overeager is never attractive.

However, If I am in a business meeting discussing profit margins, things need to stay “above board” (no matter what I am wearing).[/quote]

Hi, Tessa. My name is Teebz. Glad to have you aboard. The hockey wing, unlike these other sports, has an entire section devoted to women. :o)[/quote]

Hey, Teebz. I don’t remember getting the red carpet from you! And I even volunteered to be the hockey wing gopher (like MN Golden Gophers)! Harumph. You can expect coal in your stocking this Christmas, T. Cratchit. No coffee for you.

M. Scrooge

[quote comment=”31161″]#68 for the bengals… a defensive lineman is wearing pants from the old style bengals uniforms. they don’t have the white stripes at the top of them.[/quote]

Noticed that too, been trying to find a picture. Not only is it missing the white from the top but also extends all the way to bottom of the pants.

In the ASU / Texas tech womens basketball game held outdoors at Chase Field, the roof was open on a very cold night. The NCAA allowed players to wear long sleeve shirts under their jerseys. On top of that, the last 4:18 of the game was called due to rain……
ASU Women basketball long sleeves

link

link

[quote comment=”31169″]I’m surprised nobody had mentioned the link in the Vita Hästen pics. And as for the vintage hockey team pics, they all look like they came from the link.[/quote]

Not only that, they look like link

[quote comment=”30960″]Question about the Eagles-Giants game: does anyone know why Jeff Garcia was wearing a tight-fitting plastic glove on his throwing hand (maybe just for grip, but it looked like there was something on the back of his hand)? link is the best picture I could find.[/quote]

That was a clear bandage he had a nasty wound on teh back of his hand. during hte game it started to look worse as it got bloodier.

Better question, why was the 8 in the eagle #58 higher than the 5 on his uniform back?

You know, if it wasn’t for:

-Teams fighting and throwing cheap shots;
-Commissioners changing basketball (New Coke);
-The Wizards alternate uniform monstrosity.

NO one would be talking about the NBA.

Wow. The NBA sucks.