It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:53 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 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 9141
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: 23377
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: 2252
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: 9136
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: 23377
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: 9136
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: 259
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: 3778
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5538
Nick79 wrote:
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.


Seeing that the USA can't even qualify for the World Cup, I would say that if soccer decides on replay it's because they want it , not because the 50th ranked country in Soccer wants it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 549
Ref should have counted James “surviving the ground” when his knee hit and the ball was never bobbled, in fact James brings it into his chest.

The reach over the goal line should be James having it under control and making a “football move” to try and score a touchdown.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 549
Also, there is not one photo or video showing that James does NOT have his fingers under the ball.

Because it was ruled a touchdown on the field according to the NFL there is not one frame of INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that James fingers are elsewhere


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 549
ChippedHamSandwich wrote:
Also, there is not one photo or video showing that James does NOT have his fingers under the ball.

Because it was ruled a touchdown on the field according to the NFL there is not one frame of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that James fingers are elsewhere


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 3355
Location: Upstate NY
Fingers under the ball means fuckall. Have you seen refs call of TD catches because the receiver bobble the ball up in the air as they went to the ground ball bounces off their chest, they catch it the ball NEVER hit the ground nor even close to it, and it STILL gets called NO TD. It's happening. The movement of the ball is what is focused on in the rules if the WR goes to the ground so again, regardless if his fingers were under the ball or not, it does not matter.

What people should not confuse is the verbiage; initial contact with the ground in JJ's catch was his KNEE (like having two feet down) THEN, he makes a football move (stretching out the ball with both hands). EVERYTHING AFTER THAT IS MOOT POINT. IT'S A FUCKING TOUCHDOWN. Within rules: that was a TD. Doesn't even fucking matter that the ball moved at that point. It's bullshit. But at least focus and bitch about the right bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1328
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
Fingers under the ball means fuckall. Have you seen refs call of TD catches because the receiver bobble the ball up in the air as they went to the ground ball bounces off their chest, they catch it the ball NEVER hit the ground nor even close to it, and it STILL gets called NO TD. It's happening. The movement of the ball is what is focused on in the rules if the WR goes to the ground so again, regardless if his fingers were under the ball or not, it does not matter.

What people should not confuse is the verbiage; initial contact with the ground in JJ's catch was his KNEE (like having two feet down) THEN, he makes a football move (stretching out the ball with both hands). EVERYTHING AFTER THAT IS MOOT POINT. IT'S A FUCKING TOUCHDOWN. Within rules: that was a TD. Doesn't even fucking matter that the ball moved at that point. It's bullshit. But at least focus and bitch about the right bullshit.

I agree 100% with your second paragraph and disagree 100% with your 1st paragraph. Not sure if you left out going out of bounds, but the ball moving does not negate a catch when going to the ground. It only matters that it stops moving at some point, you are in control, you are in the field of play, and hell the ground can even be touching the ball as long as long as you have control.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:04 am
Posts: 86
What I don't understand is that once the Nose of the Ball crosses the Endzone Line (Plane) it's a TOUCHDOWN. JJ had the ball firmly in his hands when the ball crossed the plane of the Endzone line. This should have been ruled a TD based solely on this alone. If a player has the ball and it crosses the line it's a TD even if the ball is smacked out of their hand as soon as they are in the endzone. This was a HORRENDOUS call that cost us the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6523
Jeemie wrote:
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.
Not that I don't agree, but what exactly are you trying to say with this?

It's something soccer has dealt with since it's inception. American culture is not like that. At all. The ambiguity and not trying to legislate every little thing. Or prescribing a pill for every little ailment, allowing you to continue your destructive lifestyle.

_________________
"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 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 3355
Location: Upstate NY
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
Fingers under the ball means fuckall. Have you seen refs call of TD catches because the receiver bobble the ball up in the air as they went to the ground ball bounces off their chest, they catch it the ball NEVER hit the ground nor even close to it, and it STILL gets called NO TD. It's happening. The movement of the ball is what is focused on in the rules if the WR goes to the ground so again, regardless if his fingers were under the ball or not, it does not matter.

What people should not confuse is the verbiage; initial contact with the ground in JJ's catch was his KNEE (like having two feet down) THEN, he makes a football move (stretching out the ball with both hands). EVERYTHING AFTER THAT IS MOOT POINT. IT'S A FUCKING TOUCHDOWN. Within rules: that was a TD. Doesn't even fucking matter that the ball moved at that point. It's bullshit. But at least focus and bitch about the right bullshit.



I agree 100% with your second paragraph and disagree 100% with your 1st paragraph. Not sure if you left out going out of bounds, but the ball moving does not negate a catch when going to the ground. It only matters that it stops moving at some point, you are in control, you are in the field of play, and hell the ground can even be touching the ball as long as long as you have control.


Wr’s that have bobbled the ball up in air and even bounced off their chest and lost the ball all together when hitting the ground have regained control without the ball hitting the ground and it’s been called no catch. It’s happening. You are wrong saying that it only matters that it stops moving at some point. Dead wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23377
SteelThrillsseeker...I’ve never seen a catch overruled just because the ball moved, period.

Do you have some specific examples?

_________________
“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] and 19 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