The National Football League

1…521522524526527…1171

Comments

  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    It is a stupid rule.

    A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.

    What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.

    If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
    Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.

    It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.  

    Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.


    Again... I don't think anybody is disputing the replay officials got the call right as defined by the rule book. I think people are pointing out the rule is stupid.

    I remember that Megatron play. Absolutely stupid. Dez Bryant got a TD overturned as well (in a big game) with the poorly conceived rule book idea of a catch.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,026
    A catch is a catch is a catch and that dude caught the football.
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,594
    edited December 2017
    .
    www.myspace.com
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,594
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    The Juggler said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    So one thing we learned from the Eagles/Giants game yesterday is that Carson Wentz is nothing but a system QB. You can plug anyone into that system and they can throw 4 TDs.
    Kind of like Garoppolo filling in for Brady?

    Garoppolo's a pretty damn good qb. Niner's are in good shape at that position moving forward.
    If the niners build a team around Jimmy, he’ll take them places.
    He seems to have great touch on every pass he throws. Only took one 2nd rounder to get him right?

    www.myspace.com
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,809
    The Juggler said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    The Juggler said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    So one thing we learned from the Eagles/Giants game yesterday is that Carson Wentz is nothing but a system QB. You can plug anyone into that system and they can throw 4 TDs.
    Kind of like Garoppolo filling in for Brady?

    Garoppolo's a pretty damn good qb. Niner's are in good shape at that position moving forward.
    If the niners build a team around Jimmy, he’ll take them places.
    He seems to have great touch on every pass he throws. Only took one 2nd rounder to get him right?

    The better of our two 2nd rounders, yes. 
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,150
    The Juggler said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    The Juggler said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    So one thing we learned from the Eagles/Giants game yesterday is that Carson Wentz is nothing but a system QB. You can plug anyone into that system and they can throw 4 TDs.
    Kind of like Garoppolo filling in for Brady?

    Garoppolo's a pretty damn good qb. Niner's are in good shape at that position moving forward.
    If the niners build a team around Jimmy, he’ll take them places.
    He seems to have great touch on every pass he throws. Only took one 2nd rounder to get him right?

    A Pats Niner's SB in a couple of years would be awesome. The GOAT versus the Understudy. Brady has at least 4 more years in him. Long enough to see his best friend impeached.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    The Juggler said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    The Juggler said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    So one thing we learned from the Eagles/Giants game yesterday is that Carson Wentz is nothing but a system QB. You can plug anyone into that system and they can throw 4 TDs.
    Kind of like Garoppolo filling in for Brady?

    Garoppolo's a pretty damn good qb. Niner's are in good shape at that position moving forward.
    If the niners build a team around Jimmy, he’ll take them places.
    He seems to have great touch on every pass he throws. Only took one 2nd rounder to get him right?

    A Pats Niner's SB in a couple of years would be awesome. The GOAT versus the Understudy. Brady has at least 4 more years in him. Long enough to see his best friend impeached.
    lol

    Okay you're playing along now!
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • eeriepadave
    eeriepadave West Chester, PA Posts: 43,182
    Cowboys got real lucky.  Raiders probably should have won that game.
    8/28/98- Camden, NJ
    10/31/09- Philly
    5/21/10- NYC
    9/2/12- Philly, PA
    7/19/13- Wrigley
    10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
    10/21/13- Philly, PA
    10/22/13- Philly, PA
    10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
    4/28/16- Philly, PA
    4/29/16- Philly, PA
    5/1/16- NYC
    5/2/16- NYC
    9/2/18- Boston, MA
    9/4/18- Boston, MA
    9/14/22- Camden, NJ
    9/7/24- Philly, PA
    9/9/24- Philly, PA
    Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly. PA
    Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly, PA
    RNDM- 3/9/16- Philly, PA
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    HesCalledDyer said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    It is a stupid rule.

    A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.

    What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.

    If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
    Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.

    It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.  

    Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.


    Exactly.  The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well.  It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
    Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
  • Wobbie
    Wobbie Posts: 31,273
    MayDay10 said:
    Belichick and Brady have definitely made a deal with the devil or some kind of malignant demon or something.  

    trump.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
    Denver 22
    Missoula 24
  • JK_Livin
    JK_Livin South Jersey Posts: 7,365
    DewieCox said:
    HesCalledDyer said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    It is a stupid rule.

    A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.

    What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.

    If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
    Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.

    It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.  

    Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.


    Exactly.  The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well.  It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
    Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
    The ground causes fumbles all the time. 
    Alright, alright, alright!
    Tom O.
    "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
    -The Writer
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you or we have very differing opinions of what constitutes “all the time”.
  • JK_Livin
    JK_Livin South Jersey Posts: 7,365
    DewieCox said:
    I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you or we have very differing opinions of what constitutes “all the time”.
    If a "runner" falls to the ground without being touched and loses the ball, it's a fumble.
    Alright, alright, alright!
    Tom O.
    "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
    -The Writer
  • MayDay10
    MayDay10 Posts: 11,853
    Shifting gears, but remaining in the realm of bad rules....

    I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback.  It seems silly.  Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
  • HesCalledDyer
    HesCalledDyer Maryland Posts: 16,491
    MayDay10 said:
    Shifting gears, but remaining in the realm of bad rules....

    I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback.  It seems silly.  Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
    I also think when a receiver fields a kickoff or punt and steps out of the back of the endzone, it should be a safety.  Because that's what it would be on any other ball in play.
    Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 25
  • HesCalledDyer
    HesCalledDyer Maryland Posts: 16,491
    DewieCox said:
    HesCalledDyer said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    It is a stupid rule.

    A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.

    What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.

    If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
    Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.

    It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.  

    Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.


    Exactly.  The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well.  It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
    Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
    Well, what I mean is, before, you only needed possession then if you went to the ground and the ground knocks the ball loose, it was still a complete pass. With the current rule, the ground knocking the ball loose causes the pass to be incomplete, thus negating possession of the ball.
    Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 25
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    DewieCox said:
    I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you or we have very differing opinions of what constitutes “all the time”.
    How often does that happen? Doesn’t seem like a regular occurrence?

    HesCalledDyer said:
    DewieCox said:
    HesCalledDyer said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    It is a stupid rule.

    A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.

    What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.

    If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
    Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.

    It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.  

    Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.


    Exactly.  The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well.  It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
    Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
    Well, what I mean is, before, you only needed possession then if you went to the ground and the ground knocks the ball loose, it was still a complete pass. With the current rule, the ground knocking the ball loose causes the pass to be incomplete, thus negating possession of the ball.
    Better than before, when the ball couldn’t touch the ground at all.
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,809
    MayDay10 said:
    Shifting gears, but remaining in the realm of bad rules....

    I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback.  It seems silly.  Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
    Agree.  If the other team doesn't recover it should go back to wherever it was last correctly possessed.  Think this ruling is beyond silly.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • HesCalledDyer
    HesCalledDyer Maryland Posts: 16,491
    DewieCox said:
    DewieCox said:
    I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you or we have very differing opinions of what constitutes “all the time”.
    How often does that happen? Doesn’t seem like a regular occurrence?

    HesCalledDyer said:
    DewieCox said:
    HesCalledDyer said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    It is a stupid rule.

    A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.

    What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.

    If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
    Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.

    It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.  

    Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.


    Exactly.  The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well.  It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
    Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
    Well, what I mean is, before, you only needed possession then if you went to the ground and the ground knocks the ball loose, it was still a complete pass. With the current rule, the ground knocking the ball loose causes the pass to be incomplete, thus negating possession of the ball.
    Better than before, when the ball couldn’t touch the ground at all.
    It’s worse than before. Possession used to be called before the player even went to the ground. That’s my point. As long as you had possession of the ball BEFORE going to the ground, it was a catch. Now you have to hold possession through the ground. It’s stupid. 
    Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 25
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    You’ve always had to complete the catch when going to the ground. Allowing the ball to touch the ground, if remaining in control of the ball, is more lenient than it used to be.

    This whole nonsense started when they brought in the “football move” terminology. 

Categories