Patriots Panthers Great Ending

[amfootball]

Like I said, sometimes double standards are justified. In this case, it's purely hypothetical. I don't think Pats fans would be defending Peyton Manning the way they're defending Tom Brady, but again, that's hypothetical because Manning has never chased a ref into the tunnel while dropping profanities.

You need to pick a side man. Either you want to compare this to Dez/Brady or Manning/Brady. I think we have already beaten the Brady/Manning to death. And why on earth would Pats fans defend Manning? hello? It is not like I expected to see Colts fans defending Brady on this thread.

 

And Manning saves his tirades for his centers with spit oozing out of his mouth. And of course his Oline when he throws them under the bus. ;)

[Superman]

You need to pick a side man. Either you want to compare this to Dez/Brady or Manning/Brady. I think we have already beaten the Brady/Manning to death. And why on earth would Pats fans defend Manning? hello? It is not like I expected to see Colts fans defending Brady on this thread.

 

And Manning saves his tirades for his centers with spit oozing out of his mouth. And of course his Oline when he throws them under the bus. ;)

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you bow to the god of absolutes. No room for nuance with you.

 

I don't think Brady is a terrible person. My first post in this thread is giving Brady credit for backing off in his presser. I'm just saying he's getting a lot of rope where other players wouldn't. They are justifying his behavior when, in like circumstances, like behavior from a different player would NOT be justified.

 

I mentioned Manning partially in jest. 

[amfootball]

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you bow to the god of absolutes. No room for nuance with you.

 

I don't think Brady is a terrible person. My first post in this thread is giving Brady credit for backing off in his presser. I'm just saying he's getting a lot of rope where other players wouldn't. They are justifying his behavior when, in like circumstances, like behavior from a different player would NOT be justified.

 

I mentioned Manning partially in jest. 

Who is talking nuance? A player of Brady's caliber gets same treatment - Manning, Rodgers, Brees. Back in the day Marino and Favre also got passes. Comes with being an elite player at the toughest position in football - QB spot. Other receivers like Dez over the years - TO, Moss, Irving, got same treatment as him. But like I said the circumstances are worlds apart. Brady is looking for an explanation on a call on the field that decided the game on the last play. Dez was screaming at teammates and his OC for an entire half because he wanted to out perform Johnson. But I think the much larger point that you are forgetting is how Brady addressed the media after taking responsibility for the game and not blaming the refs whereas Dez justified his behavior. BIG difference and one of the many reasons the two players are viewed differently by the media.

[shecolt]

You need to pick a side man. Either you want to compare this to Dez/Brady or Manning/Brady. I think we have already beaten the Brady/Manning to death. And why on earth would Pats fans defend Manning? hello? It is not like I expected to see Colts fans defending Brady on this thread.

 

And Manning saves his tirades for his centers with spit oozing out of his mouth. And of course his Oline when he throws them under the bus. ;)

 

Hey, hello :wave: ,  In case you missed it, I just defended Brady and I am a Colt's fan.

 

So, why on earth would Pat's fans ever defend Manning? 

 

The answer is objectivity and looking at a situation through clear glasses without any bias.

[amfootball]

Hey, hello :wave: ,  In case you missed it, I just defended Brady and I am a Colt's fan.

 

So, why on earth would Pat's fans ever defend Manning? 

 

The answer is objectivity and looking at a situation through clear glasses without any bias.

I was speaking in generalities. Most Colts fans did not defend Brady and I would not expect any different. Most Pats fans have not defended him either but also understand why he had the reaction he did.

[Superman]

Who is talking nuance? A player of Brady's caliber gets same treatment - Manning, Rodgers, Brees. Back in the day Marino and Favre also got passes. Comes with being an elite player at the toughest position in football - QB spot. Other receivers like Dez over the years - TO, Moss, Irving, got same treatment as him. But like I said the circumstances are worlds apart. Brady is looking for an explanation on a call on the field that decided the game on the last play. Dez was screaming at teammates and his OC for an entire half because he wanted to out perform Johnson. But I think the much larger point that you are forgetting is how Brady addressed the media after taking responsibility for the game and not blaming the refs whereas Dez justified his behavior. BIG difference and one of the many reasons the two players are viewed differently by the media.

 

Cool deal. Point taken. 

[Superman]

Hey, hello :wave: ,  In case you missed it, I just defended Brady and I am a Colt's fan.

 

So, why on earth would Pat's fans ever defend Manning? 

 

The answer is objectivity and looking at a situation through clear glasses without any bias.

 

+1 for outstanding use of that emoticon

[shecolt]

I was speaking in generalities. Most Colts fans did not defend Brady and I would not expect any different. Most Pats fans have not defended him either but also understand why he had the reaction he did.

 

Your above post is much different

 

But, your other post read:

 

And why on earth would Pats fans defend Manning? hello?

 

That does not speak in generalities to me.  That speaks in totality.

 

And, I also know that is wrong because there are a few Patriot fans here who would defend Manning when they feel others are looking at a situation unfairly.

[Surge89]

Just a response to the highlighted line...I understand their explanation of why they picked up the flag...the part I disagree with is their explanation of what they saw. The contact did NOT occur at the same time as the interception, and that is clear to anyone who watches the replay. The VP of Officiating even said he 'understands' why they made the call in real time, and continually stressed that it was a tight judgement call (all the while not being able to bring himself to say they made the right call). 

 

Like I've said, there's a difference between a missed call and a wrong call...and if no flag was thrown initially I'm sure most people wouldnt have a problem with it. 

 

 

Again, I'm not sure if you saw the other post I had about this but, I completely understand where you are coming from, but there are things you are not considering when you look at the play in context. 

 

There is definitely, DEFINITELY contact before the ball gets there.  

 

BUT what are you going to call?  Holding? no the ball is in the air.  Illegal contact? no because there was incidental tripping between the 2 Panther's teammates, so what is left?  PASS INTERFERENCE.  So the ref watching the receiver and defender threw the flag because there was indeed pass interference.  Now, since the back line judge did not see the ball, but just the players he is SUPPOSED to be watching is supposed to and should have thrown a flag for the penalty he saw.  FACT.  

 

But then afterwards the ball was in fact intercepted (something he is not SUPPOSED to be tracking because he is supposed to be following the players!) so the line judge then comes in * the circumstance of the penalty and picks up the flag.  Why? because PI is sadly not possible because Gronk can not pass through the solid matter of a player that is between him and the ball and the rule states if the ball is intercepted and not possible for the receiver to make an attempt at the ball it is a penalty. Therefore you get what resulted in the play that happened.

 

So all together now what is it that you are wanting the refs to do?  Do you want the back line judge to not throw a flag when he sees interference?  Do you want the line judge to not correct him because he is watching the ball?  You can't have it both ways either the refs do their job or not but you can't expect a man (ref in this case) to see everything on the field at once and decide oh well this isn't gonna be PI anyways so I'm not going to throw a flag.  It just doesn't work that way.  He did his job and threw it because of the contact (kudos to him) and the other ref called it back because of the context of the rule (kudos to him).

 

It's bad luck and nothing more.  Whether the head of officiating decides to word it like that or not is irrelevant.  The head of officiating is payed to be a politically correct ambassador for the NFL referees.  So he is not going to be confrontational/resolute unless it is painfully obvious it is so.  So his generic statement on what fans deem a controversial call is expected.

[Superman]

Again, I'm not sure if you saw the other post I had about this but, I completely understand where you are coming from, but there are things you are not considering when you look at the play in context. 

 

There is definitely, DEFINITELY contact before the ball gets there.  

 

BUT what are you going to call?  Holding? no the ball is in the air.  Illegal contact? no because there was incidental tripping between the 2 Panther's teammates, so what is left?  PASS INTERFERENCE.  So the ref watching the receiver and defender threw the flag because there was indeed pass interference.  Now, since the back line judge did not see the ball, but just the players he is SUPPOSED to be watching is supposed to and should have thrown a flag for the penalty he saw.  FACT.  

 

But then afterwards the ball was in fact intercepted (something he is not SUPPOSED to be tracking because he is supposed to be following the players!) so the line judge then comes in * the circumstance of the penalty and picks up the flag.  Why? because PI is sadly not possible because Gronk can not pass through the solid matter of a player that is between him and the ball and the rule states if the ball is intercepted and not possible for the receiver to make an attempt at the ball it is a penalty. Therefore you get what resulted in the play that happened.

 

So all together now what is it that you are wanting the refs to do?  Do you want the back line judge to not throw a flag when he sees interference?  Do you want the line judge to not correct him because he is watching the ball?  You can't have it both ways either the refs do their job or not but you can't expect a man (ref in this case) to see everything on the field at once and decide oh well this isn't gonna be PI anyways so I'm not going to throw a flag.  It just doesn't work that way.  He did his job and threw it because of the contact (kudos to him) and the other ref called it back because of the context of the rule (kudos to him).

 

It's bad luck and nothing more.  Whether the head of officiating decides to word it like that or not is irrelevant.  The head of officiating is payed to be a politically correct ambassador for the NFL referees.  So he is not going to be confrontational/resolute unless it is painfully obvious it is so.  So his generic statement on what fans deem a controversial call is expected.

 

It's the bolded I have to take issue with. You obviously have a good grasp on the rule and the way officials operate.

 

But I can't support the idea that a player like Gronk couldn't have made a play on that ball. We've seen crazier things happen. That's why "uncatchable" is usually reserved for when a ball is miles above a player's head, or if it lands well out of bounds. We've seen PI called when the ball landed 15-20 yards away from the intended receiver, because NFL players can do things that you might think are impossible until you see them done. Circus catches happen every week. Balls get batted down or up all the time (did you see the end of the Auburn game on Saturday?) For a ball that was caught barely five yards away from the intended receiver (not even mentioning how big Gronk is), I can't agree with the "uncatchable" ruling.

 

The rule says the ball has to be 'clearly uncatchable' (not sure of the exact wording). I don't agree that it was.

[TAPLOOK]

THE PATRIOTS GOT SCREWED WITHOUT A DOUBT!

 

With that said so has every other team at some point. You win some and you lose some. Maybe the Patriots will benefit from a call this week?

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

THE PATRIOTS GOT SCREWED WITHOUT A DOUBT!

 

With that said so has every other team at some point. You win some and you lose some. Maybe the Patriots will benefit from a call this week?

Pats already cashed in their karma card when that blatant hold wasn't called on the final play of the Saints game.

[Surge89]

It's the bolded I have to take issue with. You obviously have a good grasp on the rule and the way officials operate.

 

But I can't support the idea that a player like Gronk couldn't have made a play on that ball. We've seen crazier things happen. That's why "uncatchable" is usually reserved for when a ball is miles above a player's head, or if it lands well out of bounds. We've seen PI called when the ball landed 15-20 yards away from the intended receiver, because NFL players can do things that you might think are impossible until you see them done. Circus catches happen every week. Balls get batted down or up all the time (did you see the end of the Auburn game on Saturday?) For a ball that was caught barely five yards away from the intended receiver (not even mentioning how big Gronk is), I can't agree with the "uncatchable" ruling.

 

The rule says the ball has to be 'clearly uncatchable' (not sure of the exact wording). I don't agree that it was.

 

That is very understandable, as always with a Judgement ruling there is unavoidable gray area and complications.(ability of the player, circumstance of the play, and such)  But all I can say is Gronk has momentum moving forward to make a catch at the back line of the end zone.  ( I would think this is pretty much agreed on)  Also the player has (even though illegally) moved with the receiver to the same spot in the said endzone.  In order for the receiver to make the catch he would have to do a combination of the following:

 

1. stop his momentum to move towards the ball

 

2. be athletic enough to dive for the ball

 

3. make the conscious decision (less than a second) too realize to stop said momentum

 

4. be able to move aside not only his defender but the interceptor as well

 

I think if you add those 4 pieces of information together you would conclude that the ball is uncatchable.  Now where the gray area resides is that the ball may not be impossible to catch but extremely unlikely to be caught so then can you say it is uncatchable?  Uncatchable has a definite connotation to it, but the rule book uses it relatively loosely because it is on a judgement call, and therefore human interaction fades the quality of definite in the term uncatchable.  As I said to explain the call in its own right takes a lot of time and all of this must be processed in seconds or less during the game.  Therefore that is why you hear such generic responses from officials.

[TAPLOOK]

Pats already cashed in their karma card when that blatant hold wasn't called on the final play of the Saints game.

 

Exactly. Jets, Saints, Panthers it happens around the league all the time. It will happen a couple of time this week.

[Superman]

That is very understandable, as always with a Judgement ruling there is unavoidable gray area and complications.(ability of the player, circumstance of the play, and such)  But all I can say is Gronk has momentum moving forward to make a catch at the back line of the end zone.  ( I would think this is pretty much agreed on)  Also the player has (even though illegally) moved with the receiver to the same spot in the said endzone.  In order for the receiver to make the catch he would have to do a combination of the following:

 

1. stop his momentum to move towards the ball

 

2. be athletic enough to dive for the ball

 

3. make the conscious decision (less than a second) too realize to stop said momentum

 

4. be able to move aside not only his defender but the interceptor as well

 

I think if you add those 4 pieces of information together you would conclude that the ball is uncatchable.  Now where the gray area resides is that the ball may not be impossible to catch but extremely unlikely to be caught so then can you say it is uncatchable?  Uncatchable has a definite connotation to it, but the rule book uses it relatively loosely because it is on a judgement call, and therefore human interaction fades the quality of definite in the term uncatchable.  As I said to explain the call in its own right takes a lot of time and all of this must be processed in seconds or less during the game.  Therefore that is why you hear such generic responses from officials.

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2013_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

Here's the rule:

 

 

 

DEFINITION

Article 1 Definition. It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of 

scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible receiver’s opportunity to catch the ball.

 

... 

 

PERMISSIBLE ACTS 

Article 3 Permissible Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are permissible by a player include, but 

are not limited to: 

 

...

 

 © Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved 

players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense. 

 

 

 

 

All emphasis is mine. 

 

The rule specifies actions that hinder a player's opportunity to catch the ball. I think Kuechly's actions clearly hindered Gronkowski's opportunity to catch the ball. I think we'd all agree with that.

 

The rule states that the pass has to be "clearly uncatchable" for any action that would otherwise be interference to be permissible. There's some grey area there, but not like you present it. And I don't think that's loose usage of the term "clearly uncatchable," either.

 

If not for Kuechly's interference, I think Gronk could have stopped his momentum and dived forward to make a play on the ball. Maybe he wouldn't have caught it, but Kuechly's interference hindered him from an opportunity to catch it. And since the pass was not "clearly uncatchable," at least in my judgment, I don't think the flag should have been picked up.

 

We're parsing this with the benefit of the rule book and slow motion and hindsight, which isn't fair. Snap judgment, I understand the refs' mistake. But I do think it was a mistake.

[Shane Bond]

Right, but... what they missed is that the contact started well before the ball was picked. That's what I'm saying. 

 

You reckon its a holding call?

[Surge89]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2013_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

Here's the rule:

 

 

 

 

All emphasis is mine. 

 

The rule specifies actions that hinder a player's opportunity to catch the ball. I think Kuechly's actions clearly hindered Gronkowski's opportunity to catch the ball. I think we'd all agree with that.

 

The rule states that the pass has to be "clearly uncatchable" for any action that would otherwise be interference to be permissible. There's some grey area there, but not like you present it. And I don't think that's loose usage of the term "clearly uncatchable," either.

 

If not for Kuechly's interference, I think Gronk could have stopped his momentum and dived forward to make a play on the ball. Maybe he wouldn't have caught it, but Kuechly's interference hindered him from an opportunity to catch it. And since the pass was not "clearly uncatchable," at least in my judgment, I don't think the flag should have been picked up.

 

We're parsing this with the benefit of the rule book and slow motion and hindsight, which isn't fair. Snap judgment, I understand the refs' mistake. But I do think it was a mistake.

 

For your first point I do agree.

 

When I say "loosely" it is because of the definition of uncatchable.  Not being able to catch.  A large percentage of throws in the NFL are not impossible to catch because of the reasons you stated before.  You never know if a ball is tipped or a player performs something thought impossible.  That is the grey I am talking about.  I know the rule book states "Clearly Uncatchable" but the term in itself is very hard to apply literally because the only way a ball is "Clearly Uncatchable" is if the dang thing is thrown 20 yards off target.  Therefore a loose definition is created.  

 

The fact you used "at least in my judgement" is talking about the grey I'm referring to with the statement "clearly uncatchable".  For a ball to be FACTUALLY uncatchable is for the ball to not be thrown anywhere within 10 yards of the vicinity of the player.  Why? because as you said players make impossible things happen all the time.  Also there is a final part again not being taken into consideration.  Kuechly (the defender) did effect Gronk's ability to come back to the ball.  But he did not prohibit Gronk from making a play on the interceptor.  Sadly yes he "possibly" could have had a play on the interceptor if Kuechly is not there, but now you are making the term "Clearly Uncatchable" even looser by ruling that.  

 

There has to be a line when these calls are made as to what can be figuratively done (and possible) and what is going to be deemed as "clearly uncatchable".  Since this is not possible to lay a standard on every single type of catch and circumstance the term in itself "Clearly Uncatchable" is going to be a loose term by it's own innate nature.

[GoPats]

You reckon its a holding call?

 

I think you could make a case for either/or. Contact definitely started before the ball came out, and PI was ruled out based on the refs' determination that the ball was not catch-able. 

 

I'm not opposed to a little contact, it happens... but Kuechly took it a bit too far with the bear hug. 

 

Great cover for PFW this week, lol... 

 

 

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Exactly. Jets, Saints, Panthers it happens around the league all the time. It will happen a couple of time this week.

...don't forget Seahawks...

I invented a new cocktail...it's called a "Bloody Fail Mary".

I make you a regular Bloody Mary, but then Golden Tate takes it, even though the drink was obviously in your possession.

[amfootball]

Your above post is much different

 

But, your other post read:

 

And why on earth would Pats fans defend Manning? hello?

 

That does not speak in generalities to me.  That speaks in totality.

 

And, I also know that is wrong because there are a few Patriot fans here who would defend Manning when they feel others are looking at a situation unfairly.

I meant it generally not totality. Nothing exists in totality.

[BOTT]

I find it hard to get worked up about the call when everyone's agrees Gronk would have had to makes a nearly impossible play on the ball.

[shecolt]

I meant it generally not totality. Nothing exists in totality.

 

Now, you're just speaking in riddles to me.

 

Your original statement was worded as one of totality.

 

Your subsequent statement was not as it included the word, "many".

 

There are numerous statements that I could make that exist in totality.  Such as, the New England Patriots are an NFL team or a gnat is an insect. 

 

So, I don't get where you are coming up with this "nothing exists in totality" stuff when I was referring to a statement that you had made and not to some grand philosophical outlook. 

[GoPats]

...don't forget Seahawks...

I invented a new cocktail...it's called a "Bloody Fail Mary".

I make you a regular Bloody Mary, but then Golden Tate takes it, even though the drink was obviously in your possession.

 

I'm going to Spygate this and pretend I made it up.    ;)

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

I'm going to Spygate this and pretend I made it up.    ;)

...awesome!

[JLeòdhas]

Hey Brady, you mad bro? Glad the patriots got the L.

[Superman]

For your first point I do agree.

 

When I say "loosely" it is because of the definition of uncatchable.  Not being able to catch.  A large percentage of throws in the NFL are not impossible to catch because of the reasons you stated before.  You never know if a ball is tipped or a player performs something thought impossible.  That is the grey I am talking about.  I know the rule book states "Clearly Uncatchable" but the term in itself is very hard to apply literally because the only way a ball is "Clearly Uncatchable" is if the dang thing is thrown 20 yards off target.  Therefore a loose definition is created.  

 

The fact you used "at least in my judgement" is talking about the grey I'm referring to with the statement "clearly uncatchable".  For a ball to be FACTUALLY uncatchable is for the ball to not be thrown anywhere within 10 yards of the vicinity of the player.  Why? because as you said players make impossible things happen all the time.  Also there is a final part again not being taken into consideration.  Kuechly (the defender) did effect Gronk's ability to come back to the ball.  But he did not prohibit Gronk from making a play on the interceptor.  Sadly yes he "possibly" could have had a play on the interceptor if Kuechly is not there, but now you are making the term "Clearly Uncatchable" even looser by ruling that.  

 

There has to be a line when these calls are made as to what can be figuratively done (and possible) and what is going to be deemed as "clearly uncatchable".  Since this is not possible to lay a standard on every single type of catch and circumstance the term in itself "Clearly Uncatchable" is going to be a loose term by it's own innate nature.

 

I think we mostly agree.

 

"Clearly uncatchable" is obviously a judgment. It's up to the refs' discretion. But use of the word "clearly" implies that the refs should assume that the player CAN make a play on the ball, unless it's just plainly obvious that it is impossible for him to get there. You should be able to prove that the ball wasn't catchable. It's a pretty heavy burden, and "uncatchable" rests that burden on the ref, not the player. Clearly. ;)

 

So while it's not defined in an absolute manner, I don't think it's an abstract idea that can't be argued. "Clearly uncatchable" should be obvious to everyone who sees it. Like I said, ball way over the receiver's head, or way out of bounds. But if the defender impedes the receiver's ability to make a play on the ball, it should be flagged.

 

In this case, if not for Kuechly's holding, I think Gronkowski would have had a chance at the ball. No one can say that he would have caught it; it's unlikely that he would have, I'll give you that. But I don't think it was "clearly uncatchable."

[Surge89]

I think we mostly agree.

 

"Clearly uncatchable" is obviously a judgment. It's up to the refs' discretion. But use of the word "clearly" implies that the refs should assume that the player CAN make a play on the ball, unless it's just plainly obvious that it is impossible for him to get there. You should be able to prove that the ball wasn't catchable. It's a pretty heavy burden, and "uncatchable" rests that burden on the ref, not the player. Clearly. ;)

 

So while it's not defined in an absolute manner, I don't think it's an abstract idea that can't be argued. "Clearly uncatchable" should be obvious to everyone who sees it. Like I said, ball way over the receiver's head, or way out of bounds. But if the defender impedes the receiver's ability to make a play on the ball, it should be flagged.

 

In this case, if not for Kuechly's holding, I think Gronkowski would have had a chance at the ball. No one can say that he would have caught it; it's unlikely that he would have, I'll give you that. But I don't think it was "clearly uncatchable."

 

 

Very nice sir well played indeed :-)

[dynasty13]

I think we mostly agree.

 

"Clearly uncatchable" is obviously a judgment. It's up to the refs' discretion. But use of the word "clearly" implies that the refs should assume that the player CAN make a play on the ball, unless it's just plainly obvious that it is impossible for him to get there. You should be able to prove that the ball wasn't catchable. It's a pretty heavy burden, and "uncatchable" rests that burden on the ref, not the player. Clearly. ;)

 

So while it's not defined in an absolute manner, I don't think it's an abstract idea that can't be argued. "Clearly uncatchable" should be obvious to everyone who sees it. Like I said, ball way over the receiver's head, or way out of bounds. But if the defender impedes the receiver's ability to make a play on the ball, it should be flagged.

 

In this case, if not for Kuechly's holding, I think Gronkowski would have had a chance at the ball. No one can say that he would have caught it; it's unlikely that he would have, I'll give you that. But I don't think it was "clearly uncatchable."

 

Exactly right...and again, if there was no initial flag, I would buy their justification of no penalty if they were to be asked why after the game. But since the flag WAS thrown, and then picked up with the explanation being that it was clearly uncatchable...well...thats what draws the ire of Patriots fans.

[Shane Bond]

I'm going to Spygate this and pretend I made it up.    ;)

 

GoPats - This comment is meant for your reply to the holding .

 

Like Tuck rule, some of these rules either have to be modified or eliminated.

[amfootball]

Now, you're just speaking in riddles to me.

 

Your original statement was worded as one of totality.

 

Your subsequent statement was not as it included the word, "many".

 

There are numerous statements that I could make that exist in totality.  Such as, the New England Patriots are an NFL team or a gnat is an insect. 

 

So, I don't get where you are coming up with this "nothing exists in totality" stuff when I was referring to a statement that you had made and not to some grand philosophical outlook. 

Are you always this hung up on semantics?

 

However you read my statement, it was intended as a generalization to mean the majority. My comment about nothing exists in totality was in reference to sports forums such as these. There is never a 100 percent consensus on anything.