It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:31 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3454
Orangesteel wrote:
How about Jesse James for once makes a big play for us? Dude was untouched on what could have been the biggest TD of the year and he fucked it away.

The guy is so milquetoast it drives me up the wall. Idiot.


Come on now. Guy caught it, secured it, lunged forward to break the plain.

Ball wobbled slightly when he hit the ground. Never lost possession.

The rule and application of it are lame.

Whatever happened to it’s a TD as soon as ball breaks the plain??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 188
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?

I keep reading that the rule was called correctly - but when I read the rules on the operations site - I feel like... unless I'm missing something.. I can just as easily determine James a runner... and I would say my reading of the rule would satisfy what most of us consider a catch and "football move" as we've seen in the case with Dez Bryant and Jesse James. I think the NFL is taking the "going to the ground" reading far too liberally - applying it far past it's original intention and ignoring the first part of the rule about how a player can establish themselves as a runner. To me, going to the ground is a diving catch attempt - that's the intention for that part of the rule - the catch James makes, he lands on his knee - and therefore satisfies the "two feet down", as long as he holds onto the ball through that initial knee hitting the turf, and is able to demonstrate an upfield move or tuck the ball - he should be a runner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 21612
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.

_________________
Bill Walsh: “Your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

R S: "All praise MJG. Fuck the NUT!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 188
Oh I know... and everyone agrees the rule interpretation sucks, but what I see - from the above - is a clear path out if the NFL doesn't want to change the rule.. I mean I believe the interpretation I laid out above is just as good as the one the NFL comes up with, and I believe the above interpretation would be far more satisfying to fans of the game who all understand when they see a catch.

The question - is why does the NFL take their path - when normal and potential fans are scratching their head? Where was this need to over commit to the whole "going to the ground" thing. I don't remember a single event or game that was won/lost because of a lack of "going to the ground" rule...

I know they took the term "football-move" out long ago - but it's still described in the rules above with specifics... specifics which I think it's pretty clear that James satisfied.

Perhaps the NFL enjoys this gray area because it gives them some control over outcomes in the rare event they get a chance... I mean if the official came out and called it a TD, stating "The player survived the initial contact with the ground when his knee hit, and therefore became a runner when attempting to turn and stretch the ball over, therefore once he crossed the goal line, we had a touchdown" would anyone have complained, argued, said it was the wrong call?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 5504
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 21612
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.


I do realize that. I don’t believe games are outright scripted or fixed...I do believe the NFL wants to subtly influence them to be what they think is “more exciting”.

_________________
Bill Walsh: “Your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

R S: "All praise MJG. Fuck the NUT!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:28 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9441
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 !!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 7387
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:50 pm
Posts: 596
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pats won’t be victimized by the “survive the ground rule
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8106
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.


Left open back door for game manipulation. It's that simple, yet people won't wrap their heads around it.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alancac98, Baltostiller, bigtoad, Bing [Bot], fractalsteel, JackSplat58, KC, Majestic-12 [Bot], randomsteelerfan, StillerInCT, Stillerz Bar and 43 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