It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:57 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: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 7883
R S wrote:
Orangesteel wrote:
And all he had to do was secure the ball, untouched, going to the ground. Sigh.



He did. His knee hit the ground. That was the "initial contact .." the rule states. Then his elbow hit. Then the ball crossed the EZ and hit the ground. So yes, the ball was maintained and in control 100% through his initial contact with the ground. (the knee!!)


I don’t disagree. It’s just that little movement at the end there fucked us. This has been a tough one for me. Lots of guys with a lot of heart that deserved to win that one.

Of course, the real pain will be if we have to go to Foxboro and lose again. I might just totally lose it :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 22343
R S wrote:
Orangesteel wrote:
And all he had to do was secure the ball, untouched, going to the ground. Sigh.



He did. His knee hit the ground. That was the "initial contact .." the rule states. Then his elbow hit. Then the ball crossed the EZ and hit the ground. So yes, the ball was maintained and in control 100% through his initial contact with the ground. (the knee!!)


Unfortunately they have never interpreted the rule that way.

Never.

So you guys have to stop harping on it that they fucked us because they've consistently called it that way.

James needed to maintain control until he was completely down...that's how they've been ruling it...and that's how they'll keep ruling it unless the rule changes.

So inundate the competition committee in February to consider bringing it up for a change.

_________________
“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: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2043
Jeemie wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
That simply is not the rule as written. Football move is related to what constitutes surviving the ground. Once you survive initial contact with the ground, you become a runner when you can make a football move. James initial contact with the ground was survived (ie he had possession). His ability to make a football was his change of direction and diving. At that point, James became a runner.

That is the way the rule is written. I know there is confusion b cause the NFL / ESpN claim it was correctly called. Both are either lying or don’t know how to parse language.

The replay ref went against common sense, indisputable evidence standard, and a technical reading of the rule. He should be fired and the results of the game vacated. A tie would be appropriate for both teams.


The problem is, every time this rule has come up where a "stretch play, etc" (Santonio Holmes, Dez Bryant, and now Jesse James come to mind), the stretch play has never been considered a football move.

Never.

So the refs may be going against common sense, but they have consistently done so.


Key difference is the change of direction. Take the Dez play. He was stumbling in bumbling in a single direction. It’s fair to say he never really had control of his body. Contrast with James he caught the ball and then turned up field. Big difference.

I’m just asking the NFL to apply their rules as written. Further, they can’t fall back on the claim that they apply the rules not as written as this fact pattern was different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 8996
Zeke5123 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
That simply is not the rule as written. Football move is related to what constitutes surviving the ground. Once you survive initial contact with the ground, you become a runner when you can make a football move. James initial contact with the ground was survived (ie he had possession). His ability to make a football was his change of direction and diving. At that point, James became a runner.

That is the way the rule is written. I know there is confusion b cause the NFL / ESpN claim it was correctly called. Both are either lying or don’t know how to parse language.

The replay ref went against common sense, indisputable evidence standard, and a technical reading of the rule. He should be fired and the results of the game vacated. A tie would be appropriate for both teams.


The problem is, every time this rule has come up where a "stretch play, etc" (Santonio Holmes, Dez Bryant, and now Jesse James come to mind), the stretch play has never been considered a football move.

Never.

So the refs may be going against common sense, but they have consistently done so.


Key difference is the change of direction. Take the Dez play. He was stumbling in bumbling in a single direction. It’s fair to say he never really had control of his body. Contrast with James he caught the ball and then turned up field. Big difference.

I’m just asking the NFL to apply their rules as written. Further, they can’t fall back on the claim that they apply the rules not as written as this fact pattern was different.



I do agree with the notion that JJ did show 2 distinct football moves, one being securing the ball and 2 being his stretch for the EZ but if you re going down you have to survive the ground.


Last edited by GreekSteel on Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 22343
Zeke5123 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
That simply is not the rule as written. Football move is related to what constitutes surviving the ground. Once you survive initial contact with the ground, you become a runner when you can make a football move. James initial contact with the ground was survived (ie he had possession). His ability to make a football was his change of direction and diving. At that point, James became a runner.

That is the way the rule is written. I know there is confusion b cause the NFL / ESpN claim it was correctly called. Both are either lying or don’t know how to parse language.

The replay ref went against common sense, indisputable evidence standard, and a technical reading of the rule. He should be fired and the results of the game vacated. A tie would be appropriate for both teams.


The problem is, every time this rule has come up where a "stretch play, etc" (Santonio Holmes, Dez Bryant, and now Jesse James come to mind), the stretch play has never been considered a football move.

Never.

So the refs may be going against common sense, but they have consistently done so.


Key difference is the change of direction. Take the Dez play. He was stumbling in bumbling in a single direction. It’s fair to say he never really had control of his body. Contrast with James he caught the ball and then turned up field. Big difference.

I’m just asking the NFL to apply their rules as written. Further, they can’t fall back on the claim that they apply the rules not as written as this fact pattern was different.


That is completely picking nits. They've never considered reaching out a football move.

I hate it...you hate it. But it's the way they've called it. You're not down on the ground until you're down on the ground completely.

_________________
“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: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Posts: 1295
Surviving the ground doesn’t clear it up though. Because now a catch is simply open to interpretation of what that means. To make sense of that the rule would have to say the ball can’t touch the ground at all.

In that pic James has 75% of the ball within his possession.

NFL is digging themselves deeper. They squirmed through another spotlight moment but they didn’t save themselves or us.

Reminds me of the international rules for soccer. There are like a total of 12 and that includes the dimensions of the fucking field and goal. 12. All legal plays, all penalties. Now sure soccer got its issues too but it never has to pull out Rule 8 article 4 section 2.4 in the public domain to cover its ass either

_________________
Three's a charm. #StanleyCup
-- Pittsburgh Penguins (@penguins) June 12, 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 8996
it's still yggy wrote:
Surviving the ground doesn’t clear it up though. Because now a catch is simply open to interpretation of what that means. To make sense of that the rule would have to say the ball can’t touch the ground at all.

In that pic James has 75% of the ball within his possession.

NFL is digging themselves deeper. They squirmed through another spotlight moment but they didn’t save themselves or us.

Reminds me of the international rules for soccer. There are like a total of 12 and that includes the dimensions of the fucking field and goal. 12. All legal plays, all penalties. Now sure soccer got its issues too but it never has to pull out Rule 8 article 4 section 2.4 in the public domain to cover its ass either




Never mind the fact I think you're being generous, do you think 75% possession is enough?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 218
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgbKNgXrFXs

Watch the catch at 6:35... lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Posts: 1295
GreekSteel wrote:
it's still yggy wrote:
Surviving the ground doesn’t clear it up though. Because now a catch is simply open to interpretation of what that means. To make sense of that the rule would have to say the ball can’t touch the ground at all.

In that pic James has 75% of the ball within his possession.

NFL is digging themselves deeper. They squirmed through another spotlight moment but they didn’t save themselves or us.

Reminds me of the international rules for soccer. There are like a total of 12 and that includes the dimensions of the fucking field and goal. 12. All legal plays, all penalties. Now sure soccer got its issues too but it never has to pull out Rule 8 article 4 section 2.4 in the public domain to cover its ass either




Never mind the fact I think you're being generous, do you think 75% possession is enough?


Well there are 4 panels on the football and only 1 is touching the ground. So yeah the math works.

So let’s review. We have tackling that we all know now causes severe brain injuries. Ooops

Now there’s catching the ball which the NFL concedes they don’t know how phenomenon works.

Passing the ball. They mostly have that one figured out. Give em a B there.

_________________
Three's a charm. #StanleyCup
-- Pittsburgh Penguins (@penguins) June 12, 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3556
it's still yggy wrote:
Reminds me of the international rules for soccer. There are like a total of 12 and that includes the dimensions of the fucking field and goal. 12. All legal plays, all penalties. Now sure soccer got its issues too but it never has to pull out Rule 8 article 4 section 2.4 in the public domain to cover its ass either


I've come to be a soccer fan, no commercials, barely any rules, no stoppages, and best of all no replay, just constant movement.

***But the asshole country, meaning the USA, is fighting hard to destroy that sport too, by trying to ram the cancer, known as replay, down their throats.


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: BarryFoster, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 14 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