It is currently Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 1849
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
They could have interpreted it as a catch as the rules are written. The "going to the ground" rule invokes only if James doesn't get two feet down, or any other body part than the hands... that way "going to the ground" invokes if he's diving to make a catch and his hands hit the ground with the ball first.

Otherwise once Jame's knee hits - and he's fulfilled the second part of the rule which turns him into a runner (the extension would do that), then it's an easy call.

The problem isn't the rule - its the stupid application of the rule and the overuse of "going to the ground" when they ALREADY have the remedy written into the defining catch rule.

Only two explanations - they want to influence the game and pick and choose... or they are lawyers trying too hard to confuse people and seem smart.


Not really.

The rule:

"The NFL rule book states in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1," 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."

James is going down as he's catching the ball. Which means feet and knees don't matter and he absolutely has to keep possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Which he doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6532
Just a reminder :

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9332

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 9144
bradshaw2ben wrote:
GreekSteel wrote:
if the roles were reversed and that was Gronk..you guys know you'd be losing your shit saying that ball 100% hit the ground.

and we'd be doing that because... THEY WOULD HAVE RULED IT A TD. Book it.




:lol: Probably right, ill grant you that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16530
Jeemie wrote:
Orangesteel wrote:
Having competent coaches would help too. KC beat NE in Foxboro scoring 21 points in the fourth quarter.

What do we do? Haley shoves the playbook up Tomlins asshole and we lose, again.


I’m beginning to lean towards the idea it’s Tomlin telling Haley to call it that way, and not the reverse.

Tomlin has been managing games this way since his second year in the league...since before Haley got here.

If we’re leading late...even if only by one score...we call off the dogs. We only get aggressive when we need to...or in the occasional totally random weird spot...probably when his gut growls.

It’s the way he is, I think.

He didn't do that in 2009, when his defense sucked.

_________________
VASteelerGuy wrote:
These refs suck


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23382
bradshaw2ben wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Orangesteel wrote:
Having competent coaches would help too. KC beat NE in Foxboro scoring 21 points in the fourth quarter.

What do we do? Haley shoves the playbook up Tomlins asshole and we lose, again.


I’m beginning to lean towards the idea it’s Tomlin telling Haley to call it that way, and not the reverse.

Tomlin has been managing games this way since his second year in the league...since before Haley got here.

If we’re leading late...even if only by one score...we call off the dogs. We only get aggressive when we need to...or in the occasional totally random weird spot...probably when his gut growls.

It’s the way he is, I think.

He didn't do that in 2009, when his defense sucked.


Because we were trailing a lot.

However, I give you Mewelde Moore on a sweep play against Kansas City as evidence.

_________________
“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: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4483
GreekSteel wrote:
if the roles were reversed and that was Gronk..you guys know you'd be losing your shit saying that ball 100% hit the ground.


Actually in the aftermath I was one of the first to say: that ball hit the fucking ground and the rule is stupid

But after some thought, even this picture you can't say for 100% certainty that ball is on the ground. I bet you show this picture to 100 random people on the street and it'd be 80/20 that say the ball is on the ground.

And that's the gist of replay: to elminiate egregious oversights. This wasn't one of those instances and there is no irrefutable evidence that James doesn't keep his finger underneath


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Posts: 1526
Guys, regarding JJ's catch - non catch. Here's why (imo) they ruled it a non-catch.

First, I will say it's a given they determined none of JJ's actions prior to hitting the ground, with his arms and the ball across the goalline, had completed the catch (which I disagree with).

Now, the video shot/angle they made their decision on (imo) was from around the 10 yardline facing JJ as he reaches out (from his right) and the one most saw over and over in the replays on TV. They zoom in and see him reach out, hit the ground, and his left elbow hitting the ground causes his left hand to slip off the ball and spin the ball in his right hand. His right hand is under the ball, but the bottom quarter/tip of the ball (pointing away from the endzone) is touching blades of grass, even though JJ's right hand (which is laying on the ground at this point) is still under it. The key video, in their decision, is showing the laces on the ball rotate/spin about a quarter of a turn while the ball is in his right hand (on the ground, under the ball), but as I said, the bottom tip/quarter of the ball is touching blades of grass while this happens. Thus, they determine incomplete pass, as even if his right hand is under the ball, if some of the ball is touching blades of grass and the ball spins/rotates in his right hand at the same time, it means he couldn't have been possessing the ball, at that very moment, in his right hand (the only one potentially controlling the ball at that time).

This, imo, is what they made their decision on - obviously, having already eliminated the moves JJ made before going to the ground.

The call was totally screwed up, but, at least, it's what I think they made their decision on.

Cleanly plucking the ball out of the air, then cleaning pulling it into your body, then cleaning reaching it out to cross the goalline to score should be added to rule as a clear football move. It should be added because it aligns with everything that every person ever playing - hell, or watching - football knows to be a catch and football move.


Last edited by DP39 on Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23382
DP39 wrote:
Guys, regarding JJ's catch - non catch. Here's why (imo) they ruled it a non-catch.

First, I will say it's a given they determined none of JJ's actions prior to hitting the ground, with his arms and the ball across the goalline, had completed the catch (which I disagree with).

Now, the video shot/angle they made their decision on (imo) was from around the 10 yardline facing JJ as he reaches out (from his right) and the one most saw over and over in the replays on TV. They zoom in and see him reach out, hit the ground, and his left elbow hitting the ground causes his left hand to slip off the ball and spin the ball in his right hand. His right hand is under the ball, but the bottom quarter/tip of the ball (pointing away from the endzone) is touching blades of grass, even though JJ's right hand (which is laying on the ground at this point) is still under it. The key video, in their decision, is showing the laces on the ball rotate/spin about a quarter of a turn while the ball is in his right hand (on the ground, under the ball), but as I said, the bottom tip/quarter of the ball is touching blades of grass while this happens. Thus, they determine incomplete pass.

This, imo, is what they made their decision on - obviously, having already eliminated the moves JJ made before going to the ground.

The call was totally screwed up, but, at least, it's what I think they made their decision on.

Cleanly plucking the ball out of the air, then cleaning pulling it into your body, then cleaning reaching it out to cross the goalline to score should be added to rule as a clear football move. It should be added because it aligns with everything that every person ever playing - hell, or watching - football knows to be a catch and football move.


That's the only change I would make as well because in order to stretch the ball out somewhere, you pretty much are guaranteed to be controlling it...and if you aren't, it will slip out of your grasp long before it touches the ground.

_________________
“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: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 1849
DP39 wrote:
Guys, regarding JJ's catch - non catch. Here's why (imo) they ruled it a non-catch.

First, I will say it's a given they determined none of JJ's actions prior to hitting the ground, with his arms and the ball across the goalline, had completed the catch (which I disagree with).

Now, the video shot/angle they made their decision on (imo) was from around the 10 yardline facing JJ as he reaches out (from his right) and the one most saw over and over in the replays on TV. They zoom in and see him reach out, hit the ground, and his left elbow hitting the ground causes his left hand to slip off the ball and spin the ball in his right hand. His right hand is under the ball, but the bottom quarter/tip of the ball (pointing away from the endzone) is touching blades of grass, even though JJ's right hand (which is laying on the ground at this point) is still under it. The key video, in their decision, is showing the laces on the ball rotate/spin about a quarter of a turn while the ball is in his right hand (on the ground, under the ball), but as I said, the bottom tip/quarter of the ball is touching blades of grass while this happens. Thus, they determine incomplete pass.

This, imo, is what they made their decision on - obviously, having already eliminated the moves JJ made before going to the ground.

The call was totally screwed up, but, at least, it's what I think they made their decision on.

Cleanly plucking the ball out of the air, then cleaning pulling it into your body, then cleaning reaching it out to cross the goalline to score should be added to rule as a clear football move. It should be added because it aligns with everything that every person ever playing - hell, or watching - football knows to be a catch and football move.


I think the confusion most people are having is the difference between the "Making a football like move" rule and the "Going to the ground" rule. They're not related. At all. If you're going to the ground as you're catching the ball, as James was, it doesn't matter if he tucked, reached, knee hit the ground, whatever. The only thing that matters, according to the rules, is that he maintains possession through contact with the ground, which he doesn't look to have done.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't have overturned a touchdown call based on the views they had, but I also wouldn't have overturned it if they had called it an incompletion on the field, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 9164
I’m tired of people absolving Tomlin when it comes to the fuck ups against New England. How many times have we been dead indians in their cowboy movies?

Tomlin either knows what it takes to beat NE, or he doesn’t. Newsflash asshole; you better not take the foot off the gas in the fourth quarter or Brady and Bill will bend you over (again).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6532
And the NFL as well as other sports websites are laughing with glee that so much conversation and traffic is being generated. Discussing the rules, parsing arguments, and splitting hairs over interpretation. Advertisers are watching the click count.

This attracts attention, but at the same time making some viewers tune out.

Controversy = Cash.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1331
Louis Lipps Service wrote:
DP39 wrote:
Guys, regarding JJ's catch - non catch. Here's why (imo) they ruled it a non-catch.

First, I will say it's a given they determined none of JJ's actions prior to hitting the ground, with his arms and the ball across the goalline, had completed the catch (which I disagree with).

Now, the video shot/angle they made their decision on (imo) was from around the 10 yardline facing JJ as he reaches out (from his right) and the one most saw over and over in the replays on TV. They zoom in and see him reach out, hit the ground, and his left elbow hitting the ground causes his left hand to slip off the ball and spin the ball in his right hand. His right hand is under the ball, but the bottom quarter/tip of the ball (pointing away from the endzone) is touching blades of grass, even though JJ's right hand (which is laying on the ground at this point) is still under it. The key video, in their decision, is showing the laces on the ball rotate/spin about a quarter of a turn while the ball is in his right hand (on the ground, under the ball), but as I said, the bottom tip/quarter of the ball is touching blades of grass while this happens. Thus, they determine incomplete pass.

This, imo, is what they made their decision on - obviously, having already eliminated the moves JJ made before going to the ground.

The call was totally screwed up, but, at least, it's what I think they made their decision on.

Cleanly plucking the ball out of the air, then cleaning pulling it into your body, then cleaning reaching it out to cross the goalline to score should be added to rule as a clear football move. It should be added because it aligns with everything that every person ever playing - hell, or watching - football knows to be a catch and football move.


I think the confusion most people are having is the difference between the "Making a football like move" rule and the "Going to the ground" rule. They're not related. At all. If you're going to the ground as you're catching the ball, as James was, it doesn't matter if he tucked, reached, knee hit the ground, whatever. The only thing that matters, according to the rules, is that he maintains possession through contact with the ground, which he doesn't look to have done.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't have overturned a touchdown call based on the views they had, but I also wouldn't have overturned it if they had called it an incompletion on the field, either.


You are missing a key word in your first paragraph. They discussed this on Sirius 88 today. You are missing “initial” contact with the ground. Because the two feet are not in play, you go to the knee being the initial contact with the ground. Then the elbow is secondary contact with the ground. Either one of those contacts with the ground allow one to make a football move afterwards.

That is how it is written. Unfortunately, we had Lawrence of Arabia reviewing the replays where nothing is written!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23382
The problem in today's world is that no one can deal with ambiguity anymore.

Black or white. Conservative or liberal. Everything defined, labeled, and put into neat little boxes. Here's a list of trigger phrases you can't say, or you're a racist, sexist scum. Here's what you can say, exactly when you can say it.

I'm arguing this rule on another board, and all I'm getting is a "but if there isn't a clearly defined rule, how will we know that it's a catch?"

The idea that you can look at something and kind of just know what it is is too disconcerting to people.

The idea that there can be ambiguity in the world and that you don't have to legislate each and every little thing is evidently too much for people to deal with.

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

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 9144
My many years of watching football absolutely tells me that was a TD. However, with this stupid wording of the rule, in which Tomlin had a hand in writing, that's not a TD..i mean some of you are looking at this pic in the OP and saying that's not clearly on the ground? Seriously. Calling a spade a spade, JJ fucked up, no reason at all that ball should be on the ground...just like he fucked us last year in the AFCCG, maybe hes now after to colossal fuckups hes learned to hang on to the fucking football.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 1849
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Louis Lipps Service wrote:
DP39 wrote:
Guys, regarding JJ's catch - non catch. Here's why (imo) they ruled it a non-catch.

First, I will say it's a given they determined none of JJ's actions prior to hitting the ground, with his arms and the ball across the goalline, had completed the catch (which I disagree with).

Now, the video shot/angle they made their decision on (imo) was from around the 10 yardline facing JJ as he reaches out (from his right) and the one most saw over and over in the replays on TV. They zoom in and see him reach out, hit the ground, and his left elbow hitting the ground causes his left hand to slip off the ball and spin the ball in his right hand. His right hand is under the ball, but the bottom quarter/tip of the ball (pointing away from the endzone) is touching blades of grass, even though JJ's right hand (which is laying on the ground at this point) is still under it. The key video, in their decision, is showing the laces on the ball rotate/spin about a quarter of a turn while the ball is in his right hand (on the ground, under the ball), but as I said, the bottom tip/quarter of the ball is touching blades of grass while this happens. Thus, they determine incomplete pass.

This, imo, is what they made their decision on - obviously, having already eliminated the moves JJ made before going to the ground.

The call was totally screwed up, but, at least, it's what I think they made their decision on.

Cleanly plucking the ball out of the air, then cleaning pulling it into your body, then cleaning reaching it out to cross the goalline to score should be added to rule as a clear football move. It should be added because it aligns with everything that every person ever playing - hell, or watching - football knows to be a catch and football move.


I think the confusion most people are having is the difference between the "Making a football like move" rule and the "Going to the ground" rule. They're not related. At all. If you're going to the ground as you're catching the ball, as James was, it doesn't matter if he tucked, reached, knee hit the ground, whatever. The only thing that matters, according to the rules, is that he maintains possession through contact with the ground, which he doesn't look to have done.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't have overturned a touchdown call based on the views they had, but I also wouldn't have overturned it if they had called it an incompletion on the field, either.


You are missing a key word in your first paragraph. They discussed this on Sirius 88 today. You are missing “initial” contact with the ground. Because the two feet are not in play, you go to the knee being the initial contact with the ground. Then the elbow is secondary contact with the ground. Either one of those contacts with the ground allow one to make a football move afterwards.

That is how it is written. Unfortunately, we had Lawrence of Arabia reviewing the replays where nothing is written!


I think you're reading too far into that verbiage. I believe the intention of the rule isn't to parse out when the players' appendages hit the ground, but to mean when he effectively is lying on the ground. IE, if James would have kept possession of that ball when his body hit the goal-line, then say, bounced, or fallen again while trying to get up, or whatever, and lost it on a subsequent fall, then it'd have been complete.

I think that in typical NFL fashion, they tried to be ultra specific in the wording and only ended up making more ambiguities, but I do think that was their intent with that word.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1331
Orangesteel wrote:
I’m tired of people absolving Tomlin when it comes to the fuck ups against New England. How many times have we been dead indians in their cowboy movies?

Tomlin either knows what it takes to beat NE, or he doesn’t. Newsflash asshole; you better not take the foot off the gas in the fourth quarter or Brady and Bill will bend you over (again).


Don’t go too hard on Tomlin. Bill Belichick was one shit call away from being accused of all the shit your accusing Tomlin of. Someone in the game post called him the clock master, to which I quickly called bullshit on pointing out that if they score quickly he will look like a fool. Had JJs play stood everyone would be asking why he took timeouts when he did, and why did he leave Ben with so much time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23382
I wonder if he hit his funny bone, and that's why his left arm jerked up like that.

Not kidding...don't laugh.

_________________
“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: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2252
Louis Lipps Service wrote:
DP39 wrote:
Guys, regarding JJ's catch - non catch. Here's why (imo) they ruled it a non-catch.

First, I will say it's a given they determined none of JJ's actions prior to hitting the ground, with his arms and the ball across the goalline, had completed the catch (which I disagree with).

Now, the video shot/angle they made their decision on (imo) was from around the 10 yardline facing JJ as he reaches out (from his right) and the one most saw over and over in the replays on TV. They zoom in and see him reach out, hit the ground, and his left elbow hitting the ground causes his left hand to slip off the ball and spin the ball in his right hand. His right hand is under the ball, but the bottom quarter/tip of the ball (pointing away from the endzone) is touching blades of grass, even though JJ's right hand (which is laying on the ground at this point) is still under it. The key video, in their decision, is showing the laces on the ball rotate/spin about a quarter of a turn while the ball is in his right hand (on the ground, under the ball), but as I said, the bottom tip/quarter of the ball is touching blades of grass while this happens. Thus, they determine incomplete pass.

This, imo, is what they made their decision on - obviously, having already eliminated the moves JJ made before going to the ground.

The call was totally screwed up, but, at least, it's what I think they made their decision on.

Cleanly plucking the ball out of the air, then cleaning pulling it into your body, then cleaning reaching it out to cross the goalline to score should be added to rule as a clear football move. It should be added because it aligns with everything that every person ever playing - hell, or watching - football knows to be a catch and football move.


I think the confusion most people are having is the difference between the "Making a football like move" rule and the "Going to the ground" rule. They're not related. At all. If you're going to the ground as you're catching the ball, as James was, it doesn't matter if he tucked, reached, knee hit the ground, whatever. The only thing that matters, according to the rules, is that he maintains possession through contact with the ground, which he doesn't look to have done.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't have overturned a touchdown call based on the views they had, but I also wouldn't have overturned it if they had called it an incompletion on the field, either.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5546
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!!)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23382
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.

_________________
“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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], VASteelerGuy and 24 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