Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 0:58:22 GMT
OK, so think of this: A receiver catches a ball all by himself with nobody around him, at the 30 yard line. His knee hits the ground. He is down but not by contact. Then he stands up still firmly holding the ball and runs to the end zone. Then as a celebratory move he jumps into the end zone and lands on the ground (inside the EZ) with the ball, which then moves when it hits the EZ's ground. Isn't it a touchdown??? The only difference is that this play happened into a much shorter space. He caught the ball with firm possession and his knee down, at the half yard line. Then since nobody touched him, he extended his arm into the end zone. The second that ball crosses the line it's a TD, regardless of what happens to the ball next. What exactly is wrong with what I'm saying? The play had two parts. One, firm catch, knee down, nobody touches him. Two, arm extends into the end zone, TD. The difference is the shorter time, he never had full possession, when he went down to the ground the ball came out, he was unable to complete the catch. Yeah, he had full possession when his knee was down at the half-yard line. It's only because nobody touched him, that he extended his arm into the end zone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:00:13 GMT
Anyway, whatever. It's how I see it. If the rule doesn't support it and the refs are right, then the rule is profoundly stupid and needs to be changed in the off-season.
But see, I'm not even a Steelers fan. It's just that I don't like what the NFL is doing with these stupid rules of what is a catch.
So, OK, I'll let go. Whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:01:40 GMT
This thing of the ground causing the fumble has been changed. The rule now is that you need to keep control at all times. But the essential point here, is that no, he wasn't touched at all when he had his knee down and full control. That's a catch to me. Then, if nobody touches him, just like in any other play, you can be down and stand up and keep running, right? It's not like in college (in the college game, if you're down, you are down, but in the NFL you need to be touched to be down). So, next he extended his arm to the end zone AND BROKE THE LINE. Only then he hit the ground with the ball that then moved, and only then he was touched. In my opinion nothing of this matters any longer because the ball had already crossed the line. I think what the refs failed to realize is that he had his knee down with full control at about a half-yard from the end zone, THEN, as he was never touched, he extended his arm into the end zone and scored the TD. Wasn't aware of the ground causing a fumble rule change. That being said - like you - I think it's got to be a touchdown if he wasn't touched by a defender when his knee was down. I'm sure we've all seen a QB hand off to a running back inside the one and the RB tries to leap over the pile and outstretch his arms/hands/ball over the goal line and a defender swats it away - but the ball has broken the goal line and is ruled a touchdown. Exactly. Jonathan Stewart had a TD exactly like this against the Vikings last week and it was correctly ruled a TD.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 18, 2017 1:02:30 GMT
Partially torn calf muscle for Brown; no surgery required but he's done for the rest of the regular season at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:03:54 GMT
Partially torn calf muscle for Brown; no surgery required but he's done for the rest of the regular season at least. Shit. There you go, Patriots again at the Super Bowl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:05:08 GMT
Wasn't aware of the ground causing a fumble rule change. That being said - like you - I think it's got to be a touchdown if he wasn't touched by a defender when his knee was down. I'm sure we've all seen a QB hand off to a running back inside the one and the RB tries to leap over the pile and outstretch his arms/hands/ball over the goal line and a defender swats it away - but the ball has broken the goal line and is ruled a touchdown. Exactly. Jonathan Stewart had a TD exactly like this against the Vikings last week and it was correctly ruled a TD. Right - we see it all the time - as long as you have possession when you break the plane - it's a TD. Only after he was in did he lose control via hitting the ground. Had complete control the whole time before breaking the plane
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 18, 2017 1:05:23 GMT
Partially torn calf muscle for Brown; no surgery required but he's done for the rest of the regular season at least. Shit. There you go, Patriots again at the Super Bowl. We'll see what Sacksonville has to say about that!
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Dec 18, 2017 1:07:14 GMT
Had similar conversations about the catch rule with my Cowboys a few years ago. Both times I think the refs got it right according to the law. Both times I've said they need to modify the law as no one can possibly be happy with the current one. Apparently it's never going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:09:05 GMT
Had similar conversations about the catch rule with my Cowboys a few years ago. Both times I think the refs got it right according to the law. Both times I've said they need to modify the law as no one can possibly be happy with the current one. Apparently it's never going to happen. I just think out of the 3 options: 1) TD 2) Ball inside 1 3) Incomplete The worst possible outcome was chosen in incomplete. He had control of the ball when he broke the plane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:16:54 GMT
Guys on ESPN are even arguing about this and confused.
This is great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:19:19 GMT
Guys on ESPN are even arguing about this and confused. This is great. Did anybody there notice that he wasn't touched when his knee was down at the half-yard line and he had full control? It is a crystal clear situation of a right to extend the play since he wasn't touched. With full control, he penetrated the end zone line. Only then the ball hit the ground and bobbled which no longer matters. TD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:20:02 GMT
Shit. There you go, Patriots again at the Super Bowl. We'll see what Sacksonville has to say about that! Hopefully. I'd love to see the Jags beat the Pats. Defenses win championships.
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Dec 18, 2017 1:23:47 GMT
Guys on ESPN are even arguing about this and confused. This is great. Did anybody there notice that he wasn't touched when his knee was down at the half-yard line and he had full control? It is a crystal clear situation of a right to extend the play since he wasn't touched. With full control, he penetrated the end zone line. Only then the ball hit the ground and bobbled which no longer matters. TD. He didn’t have full control when the ball hit the ground, thus no catch. He never maintained full possession when he went down, the refs got it right. I agree the rules need to be simplified so it’s clearer what defines a catch, but he never had complete possession.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:25:33 GMT
Guys on ESPN are even arguing about this and confused. This is great. Did anybody there notice that he wasn't touched when his knee was down at the half-yard line and he had full control? It is a crystal clear situation of a right to extend the play since he wasn't touched. With full control, he penetrated the end zone line. Only then the ball hit the ground and bobbled which no longer matters. TD. Yep. Pretty much everything was discussed. Knee down. Did a defender touch him? No. Had control. Went into the end zone with control. Ground caused the fumble and him to lose control AFTER he broke the plane. So he broke the plane. TD. Argument was like you said ground causing a fumble doesn't matter anymore (which I wasn't aware of) - but he still should have had possession the whole way through. Which I think is ridiculous - he broke the plane. Goes back to the argument of the RB jumping over the pile to reach the ball over the goal line and it gets knocked out of his hands by a defender - he crosses the plane - it's a TD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:29:10 GMT
OK, I said it a few times but didn't, but now I'm truly moving on. The people who think I'm wrong are entitled to keep thinking it, calling me stupid, saying I don't know the rules, invoking authority because some dumb TV analysts don't get it, whatever. I don't care. You can think whatever you want, for me it was a TD.
Moving on now, won't be replying about this any longer. Over and out on this. There is another game to watch, Cowboys/Raiders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 1:29:11 GMT
Did anybody there notice that he wasn't touched when his knee was down at the half-yard line and he had full control? It is a crystal clear situation of a right to extend the play since he wasn't touched. With full control, he penetrated the end zone line. Only then the ball hit the ground and bobbled which no longer matters. TD. He didn’t have full control when the ball hit the ground, thus no catch. He never maintained full possession when he went down, the refs got it right. I agree the rules need to be simplified so it’s clearer what defines a catch, but he never had complete possession. I don't get that line of thinking because he did have full control and possession when his knee was down - only after he crossed the plane did he lose possession. Think of it this way - if a receiver is running with the ball at the 20 yard line and has possession but proceeds to then lose possession when going to the ground after running 10 yards with it - is it ruled incomplete? He clearly caught the ball and had possession when his knee was down. I don't know - I'm done - it's been fun though. Maybe I'm wrong - won't be the first time though - I just fail to see how it's ruled incomplete when he fully had possession when his knee was down and then proceeded to get in the end zone and it was only after he broke the plane did he lose control (ground or not)
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Dec 18, 2017 1:29:31 GMT
Cowboys-Raiders should be an interesting SNF Game even if it’s not as good as some of the earlier stuff, nothing will beat Pats-Steelers. I hope the Cowboys win, I would like to see them be in playoff contention when Zeke returns next week, and besides, I dislike the Raiders, their obnoxious fanbase and particularly their smug religious fanatic QB.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 18, 2017 1:31:44 GMT
We'll see what Sacksonville has to say about that! Hopefully. I'd love to see the Jags beat the Pats. Defenses win championships. Can you imagine a Vikings/Jaguars Super Bowl? Great defensive matchup. I was one of the few that loved the Broncos/Panthers SB; great watching that defense stifle Cam.
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Dec 18, 2017 1:37:09 GMT
He didn’t have full control when the ball hit the ground, thus no catch. He never maintained full possession when he went down, the refs got it right. I agree the rules need to be simplified so it’s clearer what defines a catch, but he never had complete possession. I don't get that line of thinking because he did have full control and possession when his knee was down - only after he crossed the plane did he lose possession. Think of it this way - if a receiver is running with the ball at the 20 yard line and has possession but proceeds to then lose possession when going to the ground after running 10 yards with it - is it ruled incomplete? He clearly caught the ball and had possession when his knee was down. I don't know - I'm done - it's been fun though. Maybe I'm wrong - won't be the first time though - I just fail to see how it's ruled incomplete when he fully had possession when his knee was down and then proceeded to get in the end zone and it was only after he broke the plane did he lose control (ground or not) Your example is different because the receiver had clealry had possession long enough for it to be a catch, if the ball came out after that it would be a fumble. James didn’t have the ball long enough for it to be a completion, and the fact that his knee was down doesn’t make any difference whatsoever, the ball moved when it hit the ground and he didn’t complete the catch, it doesn’t matter that he had the ball when his knee was down, he didn’t have the ball long enough and he lost possession right as the ball got to the EZ, no TD, no catch. Anyway, I’m finished discussing this as well, it’s been a fun discussion though and that was the most exciting, most bizarre game of the season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 4:14:32 GMT
Cowboys-Raiders should be an interesting SNF Game even if it’s not as good as some of the earlier stuff, nothing will beat Pats-Steelers. I hope the Cowboys win, I would like to see them be in playoff contention when Zeke returns next week, and besides, I dislike the Raiders, their obnoxious fanbase and particularly their smug religious fanatic QB. A few weeks ago I was about to ask you about this, but forgot. Isn't it a bit strange to blame Carr for being religious, in a league that features or have featured people accused of being rapists, convicted murderers, people who got away with murder, various spouse beaters, child beaters, girlfriend beaters, users of PED, illicit drug users, drunks, dog torturers/murderers, toxic antisocials, people who target their colleagues on purpose trying to disable them under the risk of maiming them for life, and so on and so forth? I mean, yeah, Tim Tebow annoyed me given his proselytism. But I believe Carr is a lot more discreet; must be, because as a matter of fact, I didn't even know that he was a religious fanatic until you mentioned it (unlike Tebow who was a lot more explicit and proactive about it). I'd say that being quietly religious is one of the smallest peccadilloes one could have, in the NFL. Mind you, I'm not religious myself (and I'm not a Raiders fan), and I don't have a very favorable view of religion, but I just found it a bit strong to blame Carr for his beliefs while his behavior is not reprehensible; at least not that I've noticed. Would you mind justifying a bit more why you feel this way? Just curious.
|
|