[Official] NFL 2010


Recommended Posts

rajputwarrior

He was completely down, though. He maintained position through the catch, to the ground, and when he was getting back up, he let the ball go. It was a very bad call and some ref should be on the brink of losing his job.

I'm over the moon about that Cowboys loss though. The Redskins still suck, but apparently the Cowboys are even worse. :laugh:

Also, I hate Vick (because I hate what he did and I also hate his alma mater, Virginia Tech [which had an absolutely hilarious loss to JMU, an FCS team, this weekend :D]), but he really should be starting for Philly. Kolb was complete ****.

i don't agree with that, to me it looked like he "dropped" the ball when he hit the ground

and you guys wouldn't beleive the looks i get when i'm wearing any of my vick jerseys (got 4, 3 ATL, one philly) when i'm walking my dog :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathachew

That is not, by rule, an incomplete pass. The ground can't cause a fumble, just like it can't cause an incomplete pass when you have control of the ball when hitting the ground. What happened after he hit the ground is relevant to the situation unless you argue he didn't have control, and it seems pretty clear to me that he did, in fact, have control. Just because he had the ball in one hand doesn't mean he didn't have control. He was down, the ball was controlled securely in his hand.

To quote the rule, "if the regains control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." His legs were clearly down, he clearly had control of the ball, and then it came out after making the catch. This isn't like the other instances where the receivers lost control of the ball or weren't properly handling it. He doesn't need two hands on the ball to have control.

But the ground can cause an incomplete pass if it causes the ball to shift. This video should help with whatever is getting lost in translation in our discussion because we both agree that he really did have control prior to him putting the ball on the ground. He didn't "maintain control" after the ball hit the ground because his rolling and setting his right arm down with ball in hand was part of the process of going to the ground, not separate. I agree that it should have been a touchdown, but I'm also pointing out why it wasn't based on the rule.

I don't know how else I can try to explain it without repeating myself. It's unfortunate for the Lions, but a five or ten second play doesn't play the sole factor of a game's outcome, which Jim Schwartz acknowledged in his post game interview.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior

But the ground can cause an incomplete pass if it causes the ball to shift. This video should help with whatever is getting lost in translation in our discussion because we both agree that he really did have control prior to him putting the ball on the ground. He didn't "maintain control" after the ball hit the ground because his rolling and setting his right arm down with ball in hand was part of the process of going to the ground, not separate. I agree that it should have been a touchdown, but I'm also pointing out why it wasn't based on the rule.

I don't know how else I can try to explain it without repeating myself. It's unfortunate for the Lions, but a five or ten second play doesn't play the sole factor of a game's outcome, which Jim Schwartz acknowledged in his post game interview.

and that's the key. I think it's a good rule, they have to keep it that way, they just can't change it for an endzone. You have to have possesion of the ball during all instances of the catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayepecks

But the ground can cause an incomplete pass if it causes the ball to shift. This video should help with whatever is getting lost in translation in our discussion because we both agree that he really did have control prior to him putting the ball on the ground. He didn't "maintain control" after the ball hit the ground because his rolling and setting his right arm down with ball in hand was part of the process of going to the ground, not separate. I agree that it should have been a touchdown, but I'm also pointing out why it wasn't based on the rule.

I don't know how else I can try to explain it without repeating myself. It's unfortunate for the Lions, but a five or ten second play doesn't play the sole factor of a game's outcome, which Jim Schwartz acknowledged in his post game interview.

The video explains nothing. All it does is restate the rule. When the NFL released clarification, they didn't explain why the pass was incomplete, they just restated the rule. And of course the network it owns isn't going to say they're not addressing the issue, and Jim Schwartz isn't going to risk getting fined for criticizing the officials.

The ground can cause an incompletion, but not when you area already down with control of the ball. The only way the ground can cause an incompletion is if you do not have control of the football. Let me repeat the rule again: "if the player regains control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." Please note the very end of the quotation -- "the pass is complete." It does not matter what happened AFTER the ball touched the ground! PRIOR to the ball touching the ground, he had control of the football, which the very rule says is a completion. They even quote that portion of the rule in the video you posted.

So, let me repeat my main points again: it doesn't matter what happens AFTER the ball hits the ground as long as you have control WHEN it hits the ground, as the rule clearly states. It should have been a touchdown, even by the rule. The only reason people think it's not is because they're buying into the fact that just because the NFL restates the rule that it somehow changes what happened. Let me put it this way: read the rule thoroughly yourself. Block out what everyone else says -- me, the media, the NFL -- and tell me whether or not you think he had control of the football when it hit the ground. Because according to the rule, what happens after the ball makes contact with the ground does not matter as long as he had control prior to it hitting the ground.

Hell, even the official closest to the play called it a touchdown as it happened. I don't know what else is necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathachew

You really think the players and coaches are worried about being fined for saying something negative? Fines for comments almost always comes with an explicit laden rant, not for saying someone made a ball calls. As for the analysts and commentators, sure, they're employed by the NFL but they're not yes men, and you'd be foolish thinking they all were (because there's plenty that proves otherwise).

And I've done all I can making the case of the rule. If this video doesn't help you understand why, then nothing will. It's the most exhaustive source available on the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DirtyLarry

Man, you all can really find anything in the world to argue about huh? :laugh:

Anyway, my team Big Blue won their first game of the year, but I am pretty confident they will fall apart in the end of the season like they did last year.

Watching Gang Green right now, Baltimore just went up by 1, thanks in part to a whole lot of penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayepecks

You really think the players and coaches are worried about being fined for saying something negative? Fines for comments almost always comes with an explicit laden rant, not for saying someone made a ball calls. As for the analysts and commentators, sure, they're employed by the NFL but they're not yes men, and you'd be foolish thinking they all were (because there's plenty that proves otherwise).

And I've done all I can making the case of the rule. If this video doesn't help you understand why, then nothing will. It's the most exhaustive source available on the rule.

Um, not sure what sports you watch, but in every major American sport league (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA), if you criticize the officiating, you get fined. It doesn't matter if your rant is "explicit laden," if you criticize the officiating, you get fined.

You still have not explained how you agree with the fact that Johnson had control when he hit the ground (and before the ball came out), but think the ruling was correct. Because the two contradict one another. The official definition -- the very definition stated in the video you keep quoting -- says that if you have control of the ball when coming down, it's a catch. It literally says that it's a catch. If that can't tell you why the ruling is wrong, then nothing will. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathachew

Um, not sure what sports you watch, but in every major American sport league (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA), if you criticize the officiating, you get fined. It doesn't matter if your rant is "explicit laden," if you criticize the officiating, you get fined.

You're right, I was mistaken.

You still have not explained how you agree with the fact that Johnson had control when he hit the ground (and before the ball came out), but think the ruling was correct. Because the two contradict one another. The official definition -- the very definition stated in the video you keep quoting -- says that if you have control of the ball when coming down, it's a catch. It literally says that it's a catch. If that can't tell you why the ruling is wrong, then nothing will. :p

I'm explaining why I understand how it was ruled while disagreeing with it by saying it should have been a touchdown, so no contradiction :p It's a rare case showing the rule as inadequate.

Simply touching the ground doesn't end the player's motion of landing, rather the entire process of landing and if there is one, finishing a roll, is considered. To me, the process stopped when he caught himself using the ball with his right hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior

what a battle between the ravens and jets. possible AFC final right there

Link to post
Share on other sites
deuz

what a battle between the ravens and jets. possible AFC final right there

is sanchez still qb for jets...havent really looked at their team since last year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior

is sanchez still qb for jets...havent really looked at their team since last year?

he is

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathachew

Yeah he is, but the Jets offense were absolutely terrible. Utterly awful. 6 first downs. Sanchez was 10 of 21 for 74 yards (many bad throws), IIRC no third down conversions; the only highlight for the Jets offense was LT's rushing, which was a only 62 total yards on 11 carries. It was a good defensive game, but Sanchez looked uncomfortable and was far too eager to throw a quick pass. It's only the first game, so there's room for improvement, but a strong defense can only carry a terrible offense so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackSteyrAug

KC is kicking ass and taking names right now. Was pulling for Chargers but not looking so good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

Rivers 22 completions for 298 yards and two touchdowns and yet he's going to get saddled with the loss.

Cassel (10 completions for 68 yards and a single touchdown) will get the win.

It's crazy out there.

Edit:

Rivers did fumble twice so there's your explanation. KC also benefited from special teams (punt return TD).

Link to post
Share on other sites
ynnoj

Terrible special teams coverage cost us that game. We miss Osgood badly.

Also, VJax would have made the majority of those catches Nanee and Floyd dropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alladaskill17

Looking forward to this weekend! Falcons play Arizona! We got screwed by terrible OT defense last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior

Looking forward to this weekend! Falcons play Arizona! We got screwed by terrible OT defense last week.

falcons are going to murder that defense. Can't wait to see Vick play again too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alladaskill17

falcons are going to murder that defense. Can't wait to see Vick play again too!

I hope they kill Arizona, need that confidence back, quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayepecks

Rivers 22 completions for 298 yards and two touchdowns and yet he's going to get saddled with the loss.

Cassel (10 completions for 68 yards and a single touchdown) will get the win.

It's crazy out there.

Edit:

Rivers did fumble twice so there's your explanation. KC also benefited from special teams (punt return TD).

Kansas City wasn't focused too much on throwing a slippery ball, they wanted to eliminate turnovers which the Chargers for some reason weren't worried about. That's just being smart about your play calling and relying on the talents of your team (specifically their special teams players). Don't take away from the Chief's win that they deserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathachew

Chiefs, Bucs, and Bears 2-0.

Vikings and Cowboys 0-2.

Didn't see that coming at all. These surprises are seriously screwing up my Pick 'Em choices.

7 turnovers by the Steelers, insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Azies

Ravens lost, Flocco is doing awful.. :/ I'm wondering whether or not he's going to play this bad during the whole season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior

falcons are going to murder that defense. Can't wait to see Vick play again too!

I hope they kill Arizona, need that confidence back, quick.

told you!

vick had an awesome game today too (love having sunday ticket, watched both games).

cowboys losing makes me happy, hate them. now all i need is the saints to die tomorrow while thomas gettig 4 tds for my pool and it'll be a perfect week-end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathachew

*insert Boromir image* One simply cannot have the Saints die with Thomas scoring 4 TDs!

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior

*insert Boromir image* One simply cannot have the Saints die with Thomas scoring 4 TDs!

one can dream alright...

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.