It is currently Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
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: 22360
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.

_________________
“Your ability to think concisely, your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

"That Super Bowl was not won yesterday. It was won in a small room in Philadelphia, two weeks ago."


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
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10231
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: 636
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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10231
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: 636
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: 22360
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.

_________________
“Your ability to think concisely, your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

"That Super Bowl was not won yesterday. It was won in a small room in Philadelphia, two weeks ago."


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: 1812
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.


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

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 10231
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: 1812
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.


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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