It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 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: 4490
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 
Online

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Posts: 1538
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: 23383
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: 1863
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: 9199
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: 6541
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: 1334
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: 23383
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: 9148
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: 1863
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: 1334
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: 23383
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: 2253
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: 5555
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: 23383
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  
 
 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: 9199
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: 23383
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.

_________________
“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 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2253
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: 9148
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: 23383
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.

_________________
“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 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Posts: 1458
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


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: 9148
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: 266
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: 1458
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.


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: 3781
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  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baltostiller, bigtoad, Bing [Bot], DrMalba, Google [Bot], SteelThrillsseeker and 34 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