It is currently Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:16 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23662
Baltostiller wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/
From the above site:

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.


These both seem to contradict each other. The first rule defines what is a catch and when a player becomes a runner. If I'm reading that, james does secure the ball in his hands, and his knee hits which is satisfies "both feet" coming to the ground. Moving on to the defining a runner section - the list given - I would say James did tuck the ball away and turn upfield (via an extension to the goalline). The conjunction "or" means that any one of those are good enough to call him a runner at that point (by which once the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD.

Now, Item 1 is about players going to the ground - but what's confusing to me is the first part specifically mentions that once a players body part hits the ground and he has control of the ball - he can be a runner if he does any number of things. James initial contact with the ground is his knee, and he does survive that...

If he survives the first contact with the ground, and by definition of the first rule can be considered a runner... how is an attempt to extend the ball forward not considered in turning him into a runner?


Been discussed ad nauseum.

What you say is all well and good, but what we KNOW is that how the NFL has been interpreting the “going to the ground” rule has been very strict and has not considered “reaching”, “stretching out”, etc as “a football move” allowing the knee touch to be considered the end of “going to the ground”.

They’ve actually been quite consistent with that interpretation.


Except where they're not. See Brandin Cooks catch for the pats* against the Texans earlier this year.


Their “explanation” there is that there was not sufficient evidence he lost the ball.

They didn’t rule that he caught it, made a “move” and then went to the ground where he lost it.

If they felt like they had sufficient evidence, they would have overturned it.

We can get into the “sufficient evidence” subjectivity another time.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:51 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12049
Jeemie wrote:
We can get into the “sufficient evidence” subjectivity another time.


Yep. "Indisputable evidence" appears to have been thrown out the window, which lends a lot of credence to theories about putting the thumb on the scale....

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:50 pm
Posts: 817
Jeemie, you've seen the video and pictures out there. He didn't "survive the ground" That ball moved and hit the ground. There was every bit as much evidence on that call that there was on JJ's. Same guy in NY made both calls and both calls blatantly favored the Pats*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:11 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12049
Baltostiller wrote:
Jeemie, you've seen the video and pictures out there. He didn't "survive the ground" That ball moved and hit the ground. There was every bit as much evidence on that call that there was on JJ's. Same guy in NY made both calls and both calls blatantly favored the Pats*


And the replays I've seen on JJ don't conclusively show he lost control and/or didn't have his fingers under the ball.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:50 pm
Posts: 817
Kodiak wrote:
Baltostiller wrote:
Jeemie, you've seen the video and pictures out there. He didn't "survive the ground" That ball moved and hit the ground. There was every bit as much evidence on that call that there was on JJ's. Same guy in NY made both calls and both calls blatantly favored the Pats*


And the replays I've seen on JJ don't conclusively show he lost control and/or didn't have his fingers under the ball.


http://images.performgroup.com/di/libra ... quality=70


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23662
Baltostiller wrote:
Jeemie, you've seen the video and pictures out there. He didn't "survive the ground" That ball moved and hit the ground. There was every bit as much evidence on that call that there was on JJ's. Same guy in NY made both calls and both calls blatantly favored the Pats*


When I mentioned “being consistent”, I meant the NFL has consistently ruled that the mere act of reaching out with the football while going to the ground after the knee has hit does not constitute “a move with the ball”...it’s all part of going to the ground.

On THAT, they’ve been consistent.

I agree their definition of “indisputable evidence” seems to be very subjective.

I think there was indisputable evidence Cooks lost the ball.

I think there was indisputable evidence James lost the ball (agree to disagree with my Steeler brethren on this one)...but less evidence than Cooks’, so the NFL was inconsistent there.

The team that has the most to complain about, however, is the New York Jets. I have looked at the Seferian-Jenkins’ play a hundred times...I see absolutely NO evidence he didn’t regain control of the ball before he touched the pylon. In fact, I don’t see much evidence the ball moved at all. Yet they overturned a touchdown call on that one. That one seemed outright made up.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Baltostiller wrote:
Jeemie, you've seen the video and pictures out there. He didn't "survive the ground" That ball moved and hit the ground. There was every bit as much evidence on that call that there was on JJ's. Same guy in NY made both calls and both calls blatantly favored the Pats*


This above is indesputable!!!

Scales were tipped, and that's the fact!!

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
bradshaw2ben wrote:
TB wrote:
Michael Lombardi is dim-witted shit who owes his whole career to spending a few years as a zit on Belichick’s ass. He’s a joke, a liar, and a dumbass.

GD I’m tired of discussing it. The NFL catch rule is stupid, but that wasn’t a catch. It’s not a f’n conspiracy, just a shit rule. He wasn’t a runner, he lost control of the ball going to the ground, end of story. Write your congressman. Quit watching football forever and eva and eva. I don’t care. And after that play the Steelers had two plays from the 10 yard line to win it, or at least go for it and settle for a FG to go into OT and they f’d it up. They panicked and our QB made a bad decision and we lost the game. The Steelers lost it, not the f’n refs. Tired of all the excuses and the whining and calls for coaches being fired every single time we lose a game. Tough shit. Do better next time.

Our QB made a bad decision? He called a play that got a WR wide open on a slant, threw a perfect ball, and the defender used a right hand hold to get himself leverage to make a play on it. Whose fault is that?


...and stepped on our reciever's foot to boot. I don't blame Ben for throwing that ball. As a matter of fact, I would have blamed him for NOT throwing it, as 99% of the poasters here would have, had Brady won the toss and driven downfield and won the game in OT.

As the old timers say, three things can happen when you throw a forward pass. Two of them are bad. Shit happens.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:01 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12049
Baltostiller wrote:
Kodiak wrote:
Baltostiller wrote:
Jeemie, you've seen the video and pictures out there. He didn't "survive the ground" That ball moved and hit the ground. There was every bit as much evidence on that call that there was on JJ's. Same guy in NY made both calls and both calls blatantly favored the Pats*


And the replays I've seen on JJ don't conclusively show he lost control and/or didn't have his fingers under the ball.


http://images.performgroup.com/di/libra ... quality=70



His fingers are still underneath the ball. That's inconclusive, and that's the point.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
SteelyourFace wrote:
I needed to take several days to calm the fuck down before I could spend the energy to join the discussion. I've been a football fan for forty years. Some of my earliest and favorite memories involved the Steelers and the NFL. Several have commented that they have all but stopped watching nfl games not involving the Steelers. So have I. I used to watch the pregame shows and really enjoy them. NO more. This isn't about a rule. This is about a fuck job. I deal with rules, complex rules, for a living. They weren't reviewing that play. they were discussing whether they could justify taking the touchdown off the board. The games are almost unwatchable anymore.

I cant tell you how shocking it is to me that I would even consider shutting it down. I hate the NFL. I hate the talking heads. I hate the fucking NFL. Calling direct tv today to cancel the Sunday ticket. No more of my hard earned money. Whatever I decide to watch from here on out will be free.

I will never accept what happened. That wasnt a "call". That was a fuck job. A fuck job that started weeks ago when gronk's suspension was shortened so he would play in this game after he assaulted a fellow player with a metal elbow brace. He hurt that guy and he did it on purpose. That action deserved a grand jury inquest not a one game suspension.


Now THIS is the poast the deserves the slow clap...

I've agreed with the bolded for a few years now. I used to ALWAYS pony up for the ticket. It was the one consistently enjoyable thing in my life. I watched every game, even in the non-Steelers time slots. A few years back I lost my job, so it started out of necessity. But even when I could afford it again, I REFUSE to subsidize this crooked cabal who are stealing our tax money and adjusting results. I'll always love the Steelers, win or lose. But they are ruining this game.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
bam morris wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
These both seem to contradict each other.
This is what jeems and a few others don't realize. The rules are written to be vague. In order to be interpreted the way the NFL wants.

US immigration law and DHS laws are similar in that regard. All you have to do is read your passport to understand that contradiction is the key to control in the hands of authority.

yes...I used to believe in santa and the nfl followed rules no matter... after so many of these calls noway I believe theres not personal and monetary shit involved. or just plain bias. rules seem made to be in place to have a large gray area any outcome can be made and the rule followed highlighted. bullshit !!


The spread was NE -2.5. Anyone who doesn't believe this game was fixed is kidding themselves.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1902
Orangesteel wrote:
All JJ has to do is get across the damn goal line and go to the ground without the damn ball moving. It doesn’t matter if you think, and I think, that the rule is retarded, which it is. James was untouched, with ball in hand, and he still managed to screw it up. You know how you don’t be subject to the dumbest rule in the book? You secure the ball.

If Rowe or Chung were hanging on his back and the ball shifts when he goes to the ground; I get it. Completely untouched and practically rolling into the end zone and ball still shifts? Come on dude.

It’s not like I’m wishing ill will on the guy, but but I’ve been waiting years for James to make a big play for us at a crucial time, and it looks like I’ll continue to wait.


If Rowe and Chung were hanging on his back, he would have been down at the 1.

That's the absurdity of the rule right there.

_________________
Mike Tomlin. Useless idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 9782
JackSplat58 wrote:
Orangesteel wrote:
All JJ has to do is get across the damn goal line and go to the ground without the damn ball moving. It doesn’t matter if you think, and I think, that the rule is retarded, which it is. James was untouched, with ball in hand, and he still managed to screw it up. You know how you don’t be subject to the dumbest rule in the book? You secure the ball.

If Rowe or Chung were hanging on his back and the ball shifts when he goes to the ground; I get it. Completely untouched and practically rolling into the end zone and ball still shifts? Come on dude.

It’s not like I’m wishing ill will on the guy, but but I’ve been waiting years for James to make a big play for us at a crucial time, and it looks like I’ll continue to wait.


If Rowe and Chung were hanging on his back, he would have been down at the 1.

That's the absurdity of the rule right there.


Completely agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3194
Just so you can see the craziness that is the catch rule. The article has the entire history of the rule including all the the changes since 2001.

https://deadspin.com/bert-emanuel-who-s ... 1821393650

Quote:
Emanuel, whose Twitter name is TheBertEmanuelRule, watched the end of Patriots-Steelers the other night and thought Jesse James scored a touchdown.

“He’s established possession, he has control, he’s reaching now, ball across the goal line—touchdown,” Emanuel told me. “Same thing I saw with Dez Bryant. Dez Bryant juggles it, he catches it, he maintains control. A receiver would never, ever reach unless he has control. He will always focus on maintaining control of the ball. Once he reaches, in his mind, control is established.”

* The best solution, Emanuel said, would be for the league to go back to something on the order of the original Bert Emanuel Rule, to something that says when a receiver has both feet or one knee or one butt cheek or whatever on the ground while controlling the ball, he becomes a runner. In which case, James would have scored a touchdown the instant the ball crossed the plane of the goal line.

“It just doesn’t make sense to me, it logically doesn’t make sense to me,” Emanuel said. “So you need to be classified as a runner—if you have the ball, you’re a runner. Whether you’re diving for extra yardage, whether you’re running for extra yardage, whether you’re falling for extra yardage, you are classified as a runner.

“My thought is the process stops when the ball is in my hand, and for a split second as I’m moving forward, it does not move at all. It does not move. I know in my head when it’s a fumble, or when it’s a catch.”

* An earlier version of this post included a sentence that argued incorrectly that the officials would have ruled James fumbled had the ball been knocked from his hands before it hit the ground.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:20 pm
Posts: 2197
jebrick wrote:
Just so you can see the craziness that is the catch rule. The article has the entire history of the rule including all the the changes since 2001.

https://deadspin.com/bert-emanuel-who-s ... 1821393650

Quote:
* The best solution, Emanuel said, would be for the league to go back to something on the order of the original Bert Emanuel Rule, to something that says when a receiver has both feet or one knee or one butt cheek or whatever on the ground while controlling the ball, he becomes a runner. In which case, James would have scored a touchdown the instant the ball crossed the plane of the goal line.


The above suggestion is in the rule now - they can choose to interpret the rule that way at any time. I understand Jeems point that the NFL has consistently come to this odd conclusion (when it seems to suit the result that helps the patriots) that a secondary move after catching the ball and having two feet or a body part other than the hand touch the ground is still "going to the ground" even though the first part of the rule clearly describes that the particular situation is the first part of becomming a runner.

Going to the ground seems to be written for catching the ball in the act of diving or leaving your feet, not for falling while catching to your knee or rolling after a catch. The first part of the rule is sufficiently written to handle those cases and in fact seems to be written exactly to handle those situations... the NFL just chooses to call everything going to the ground for some odd reason - or at least when it suits the result.

I mean if a player drops to his knees to catch a low throw, secures it, then turns his upper body to extend the ball to the goaline but as he's touching the ball down in the endzone, it moves when touching the ground - the NFL ignores the whole first part of the rule and goes straight to "going to the ground" section - when there is no need to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:20 pm
Posts: 2197
Interesting thought experiement.

What if a Patriot defender had knocked the ball out of James hand after he extended it over the goal line but before it hit the ground?

As in - James makes the catch we see, knee hits - he turns and extends the ball past the goaline, but a patriot player diving in knocked the ball away just after it breaks the plane, but before it hits the ground.

Would that play be ruled a touchdown - or would they have called it an incomplete pass?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23662
JackSplat58 wrote:
The spread was NE -2.5. Anyone who doesn't believe this game was fixed is kidding themselves.


It all depends if there was a lot of money on the Steelers. Do we know that there was?

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 8153
dropemjaybird wrote:
Interesting thought experiement.

What if a Patriot defender had knocked the ball out of James hand after he extended it over the goal line but before it hit the ground?

As in - James makes the catch we see, knee hits - he turns and extends the ball past the goaline, but a patriot player diving in knocked the ball away just after it breaks the plane, but before it hits the ground.

Would that play be ruled a touchdown - or would they have called it an incomplete pass?

They would have to call it an incomplete pass.

_________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BarryFoster, fractalsteel, Havoc, Hinestuff, Ice, Jobus Rum, Kodiak, seabs926, Steeledge, StillerDownSouth, the-other-burg and 49 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group