It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:53 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1812
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline

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

Unfortunately, the NFL has never defined making a move with the football (stretching out, etc) as something that establishes a receiver as a runner.


But it did,
Quote:
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


If extending the ball is not turning upfield, then the rules are not written in English - and do note that a move with the football (ie tucking it away) is mentioned. The NFL has a rule already written to handle the James catch, they just choose not to use it. The player only needs to accomplish one of the above, James did tuck the ball away, and turned upfield to stretch it to the goaline. It's far easier for the NFL to solve these matters by applying the above rule and utilizing the "going to the ground' for instances where a player makes a catch while diving or falling and does not satisfy the runner provision above - as was originally intended.

Remember, the rule above says "second foot", but one knee does equal two feet according to the first part of the rule (not quoted here).

To be honest - for me there is no reason to argue the fingers or did he control through the ground - the proper ruling should have been that James became a runner as he satisfied all the items on the list to do so. The NFL doesn't need to rewrite anything - they just need to read their own rule and apply it... of course that might hurt the Patriots in such situations which is why I doubt they will do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2135
JackSplat58 wrote:
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.


The picture combined with watching the replay and seeing the ball around after hitting the ground is indisputable proof that he dropped the fucking ball.

Just because you're gonna go all Climate Change denier and act like having your two weak fingers trapped under a ball that is laying on the ground is equal to control doesn't mean it's actually disputable.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2135
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
Jeemie wrote:

Unfortunately, the NFL has never defined making a move with the football (stretching out, etc) as something that establishes a receiver as a runner.


But it did,
Quote:
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


If extending the ball is not turning upfield, then the rules are not written in English - and do note that a move with the football (ie tucking it away) is mentioned. The NFL has a rule already written to handle the James catch, they just choose not to use it. The player only needs to accomplish one of the above, James did tuck the ball away, and turned upfield to stretch it to the goaline. It's far easier for the NFL to solve these matters by applying the above rule and utilizing the "going to the ground' for instances where a player makes a catch while diving or falling and does not satisfy the runner provision above - as was originally intended.

Remember, the rule above says "second foot", but one knee does equal two feet according to the first part of the rule (not quoted here).

To be honest - for me there is no reason to argue the fingers or did he control through the ground - the proper ruling should have been that James became a runner as he satisfied all the items on the list to do so. The NFL doesn't need to rewrite anything - they just need to read their own rule and apply it... of course that might hurt the Patriots in such situations which is why I doubt they will do so.


Doesn't apply because he's falling to the ground. If he took two steps and remained upright you might have an argument.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1812
fortythree wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.


The picture combined with watching the replay and seeing the ball around after hitting the ground is indisputable proof that he dropped the fucking ball.

Just because you're gonna go all Climate Change denier and act like having your two weak fingers trapped under a ball that is laying on the ground is equal to control doesn't mean it's actually disputable.


I can control a football with my pinky and fourth finger perfectly fine. I can't speak for Jesse James. And neither can you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2135
JackSplat58 wrote:
fortythree wrote:
JackSplat58 wrote:
That may be your opinion. And it may well be a valid opinion. But the rules state that the ball can touch the ground as long as the ball is still in the receiver's control. There is no specification as to exactly how many fingers must be under the ball to maintain said control.

Again, the burden of proof is INDISPUTABLE evidence, which in this case still does not exist. Not opinion even if it is a consensus. INDISPUTABLE.


The picture combined with watching the replay and seeing the ball around after hitting the ground is indisputable proof that he dropped the fucking ball.

Just because you're gonna go all Climate Change denier and act like having your two weak fingers trapped under a ball that is laying on the ground is equal to control doesn't mean it's actually disputable.


I can control a football with my pinky and fourth finger perfectly fine. I can't speak for Jesse James. And neither can you.


Lol you're in denial. Hilariously sad.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:11 pm
Posts: 1812
Very convincing. Your debate team experience is clear here. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm
Posts: 2135
JackSplat58 wrote:
Very convincing. Your debate team experience is clear here. :roll:


It's impossible to debate someone who refuses to see reality.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 188
fortythree wrote:
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
Jeemie wrote:

Unfortunately, the NFL has never defined making a move with the football (stretching out, etc) as something that establishes a receiver as a runner.


But it did,
Quote:
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


If extending the ball is not turning upfield, then the rules are not written in English - and do note that a move with the football (ie tucking it away) is mentioned. The NFL has a rule already written to handle the James catch, they just choose not to use it. The player only needs to accomplish one of the above, James did tuck the ball away, and turned upfield to stretch it to the goaline. It's far easier for the NFL to solve these matters by applying the above rule and utilizing the "going to the ground' for instances where a player makes a catch while diving or falling and does not satisfy the runner provision above - as was originally intended.

Remember, the rule above says "second foot", but one knee does equal two feet according to the first part of the rule (not quoted here).

To be honest - for me there is no reason to argue the fingers or did he control through the ground - the proper ruling should have been that James became a runner as he satisfied all the items on the list to do so. The NFL doesn't need to rewrite anything - they just need to read their own rule and apply it... of course that might hurt the Patriots in such situations which is why I doubt they will do so.


Doesn't apply because he's falling to the ground. If he took two steps and remained upright you might have an argument.


I don't need two steps - I just need 1 knee, part 2 of article 3.
Quote:
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and


Again - it only doesn't apply if the NFL decides to forgo the English language and ignore one part of the rule for the benefit of the other. Now James could go to the ground and not establish himself as a runner by failing to tuck the ball or turn upfield - at which point we could invoke the going to the ground rule.

I mean catching the football isn't based on hidden data and faulty computer models....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Coach Priatko's take on Steelers-Pats
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 21610
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
If extending the ball is not turning upfield, then the rules are not written in English - and do note that a move with the football (ie tucking it away) is mentioned. The NFL has a rule already written to handle the James catch, they just choose not to use it. The player only needs to accomplish one of the above, James did tuck the ball away, and turned upfield to stretch it to the goaline. It's far easier for the NFL to solve these matters by applying the above rule and utilizing the "going to the ground' for instances where a player makes a catch while diving or falling and does not satisfy the runner provision above - as was originally intended.

Remember, the rule above says "second foot", but one knee does equal two feet according to the first part of the rule (not quoted here).

To be honest - for me there is no reason to argue the fingers or did he control through the ground - the proper ruling should have been that James became a runner as he satisfied all the items on the list to do so. The NFL doesn't need to rewrite anything - they just need to read their own rule and apply it... of course that might hurt the Patriots in such situations which is why I doubt they will do so.


I don't disagree with you re: making the move with the ball, but the NFL has never translated their rule that way. Ask Santonio Holmes or Dez Bryant.

The laws of physics also tell us that even though James' knee was down, he wasn't finished going to the ground...even had he done nothing else, he was going to continue falling...had he lost the ball when completing that fall, the same ruling would have been made.

And whether or not we feel the stretch out should count as a move (I happen to believe it does...a player that can stretch the ball out has proved he has control of it), the NFL doesn't.

Sucks- but it's been that way since going to the ground has been instituted. It's why I knew they'd overturn the TD as soon as I saw the first replay.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 86n96, BarryFoster, Bing [Bot], DP39, Google [Bot], Ice, JackSplat58, Lynch, Nick79, Poltargyst, randomsteelerfan, steelheels, Stillcajun, VanWilder, VASteel, VASteelerGuy and 51 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