NFL 2017-18: Watch athletes destroy their brains

gak

gak

<Gold Donor>
2,001
10,538
Ouch...

1a.jpg

1b.jpg
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
18,405
51,805
Genjiro said:
Saw this in an article how Al Riveron has made three calls/no calls this year that decided the game and all went in favor of NE.

• New England’s Brandin Cooks caught a 25-yard touchdown pass with 23 seconds left to beat Houston 36-33 on Sept. 24. He caught the ball with both feet in the end zone but lost control as he hit the ground out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and Riveron did not overturn it upon review.

• New York Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins caught a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots, and fumbled through the back of the end zone once he crossed the line. It was ruled a touchdown on the field. Riveron overturned it. The Patriots got the ball at the 20. New England went on to win 24-17 on Oct 15.

• Then, Sunday night Jesse James caught a pass from Ben Roethlisberger over the middle, was never touched as his knee hit the ground, stretched the ball over the goal line and only then seemed to lose control of it. Riveron overturned the score, putting the ball back at the 10. New England won, 27-24.
Click to expand...

The Cheatriots get a lot of bullshit calls. This wasn't one of them.

Brandin Cooks’ touchdown epitomized the catch rule's ‘gray area’
 
Genjiro

Genjiro

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
5,218
5,066
Sure, you could call Cooks catch a touchdown the same way James should have been called a touchdown. Catch, football move, touchdown. At least be consistent.
 
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
18,405
51,805
But a "football move" isn't why Cook was given the touchdown. The article is pretty clear on that.
 
Genjiro

Genjiro

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
5,218
5,066
A note in Rule 8.1.3 states this clearly:

If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

That is why Cooks was given the touchdown. Applies to both cases.
 
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
18,405
51,805


You are correct, that is the proper rule to apply. And James loses complete control of the football. No catch.
 
Genjiro

Genjiro

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
5,218
5,066
Again its the subjective part of when he has the ball and makes the football move part.

I was listening to Brian Billick talk about this on Sirius who says its 100% a catch if you go by the language of the rule.

Why? Because of the phrasing in that rule book article. It says the player needs to keep possession when going to the ground blah blah but then, the rule says the word *initial* contact with the ground.

Here's the rule, verbatim from the rule book: "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession."

So, Billick was saying that if they had not included the word "initial" there, the refs and the NFL would have been right to call that play not a TD.

However, he said, if the player needs to regain control before the *initial* contact, then we need to judge this play at the moment the knee hit the ground. That was the *initial* contact, Billick said. He added that one knee is equal to two feet.

The NFL and the refs are considering the "initial" contact with the ground, to be the moment when the player went down with the ball over the line into the end zone and the ball bobbled when it hit the ground and the player never regained full control before that "initial" contact with the ground.

But oh wait, according to Billick they failed to consider that the "initial" contact had already happened (the knee), and at that moment there was full control, so like my initial take on this, he believes that once the player who wasn't touched then extended the ball into the end zone, the moment the first bit of the ball crossed the plane, it was a TD and the play was dead, and subsequent bobbling shouldn't have mattered.

He added that with a knee down (therefore the equivalent of two feet down) the player made a football move by extending his arm into the end zone.

This retarded rule is 100% getting changed in the offseason.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Genjiro

Genjiro

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
5,218
5,066
Poor Lions, I'll give you that. The Calvin one vs the Bears Im pretty sure we all here agreed was bullshit
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,233
speaking of poor Lions, i hadn't seen the Pro Bowl roster until just now. Darius Slay being the only Lion on there is pretty bogus. Matt Prater definitely should be on there, and he isn't even named as an alternative this year. Matthew Stafford should for sure be on there:

Here’s where Matthew Stafford ranks among NFC quarterbacks through Week 15:

Yards: 1st (3,920)
Passer rating: 3rd (99.1)
Yards per attempt: 3rd (7.82)
Completion percentage: 3rd (66.3)
Touchdowns: 3rd (25)
Click to expand...

and no Golden Tate? Jamal Agnew? i know it's just fans voting and not really anything official, but i am officially rustled.
 
DickTrickle

DickTrickle

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
13,743
16,110
Genjiro said:
Again its the subjective part of when he has the ball and makes the football move part.

I was listening to Brian Billick talk about this on Sirius who says its 100% a catch if you go by the language of the rule.

Why? Because of the phrasing in that rule book article. It says the player needs to keep possession when going to the ground blah blah but then, the rule says the word *initial* contact with the ground.

Here's the rule, verbatim from the rule book: "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession."

So, Billick was saying that if they had not included the word "initial" there, the refs and the NFL would have been right to call that play not a TD.

However, he said, if the player needs to regain control before the *initial* contact, then we need to judge this play at the moment the knee hit the ground. That was the *initial* contact, Billick said. He added that one knee is equal to two feet.

The NFL and the refs are considering the "initial" contact with the ground, to be the moment when the player went down with the ball over the line into the end zone and the ball bobbled when it hit the ground and the player never regained full control before that "initial" contact with the ground.

But oh wait, according to Billick they failed to consider that the "initial" contact had already happened (the knee), and at that moment there was full control, so like my initial take on this, he believes that once the player who wasn't touched then extended the ball into the end zone, the moment the first bit of the ball crossed the plane, it was a TD and the play was dead, and subsequent bobbling shouldn't have mattered.

He added that with a knee down (therefore the equivalent of two feet down) the player made a football move by extending his arm into the end zone.

This retarded rule is 100% getting changed in the offseason.
Click to expand...

Football move is old language, btw. Doesn't apply this year.
 
Sadre Spinegnawer

Sadre Spinegnawer

<Banned>
4,107
4,043
Genjiro said:
.....
But oh wait, according to Billick they failed to consider that the "initial" contact had already happened (the knee), and at that moment there was full control, so like my initial take on this, he believes that once the player who wasn't touched then extended the ball into the end zone, the moment the first bit of the ball crossed the plane, it was a TD and the play was dead, and subsequent bobbling shouldn't have mattered.
...
Click to expand...

But is a badly written rule. I thought the following was the case: 1) this rule specifically has to do with catches, not runners. 2) the initial contact with the ground is not the player, but the "ball".

Under those two conditions, the play was not a TD. The receiver did not maintain controlled possession through the initial contact of the ball w/ the ground.

But your description demonstrates how stupid that ruling was *in this case* -- namely, the player had extended (in control) the football across the plane of the goal line. It was only after he had extended that the ball jiggled on contact with the ground.

I think your interpretation needs to be added to the rule. "in the case of crossing the plane of the goal line, if the receiver has possession of the ball as it breaks the plane, the play is dead at that point, and it is a TD."
 
Last edited:
Genjiro

Genjiro

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
5,218
5,066
Merrith said:
Yeah was going to say that one I thought was ruled correctly.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you both, I just feel the James catch met all the same criteria as the Cooks catch. Its pretty clear in the video above he catches the ball, knee goes down, and *then* extends the ball -- it happens in a sequence -- not at the same time. Same as catch, tuck the ball, do little hop, ball hits the ground and comes out (in the Cooks catch) because he already had established possession. Its that whole process of going all the way to the ground which is a subjective gray area and is silly.

Either way that rule is 99.9% getting changed this offseason when the competition committee meets again. While I am salty about it, Im more salty the Steelers were not ready for the bullshit scenario. Not having a couple plays ready was just idiotic and bad coaching at that point. Trying to be Dan Marino and throwing it into triple coverage was even dumber, but hopefully AB will be ready if we play them again and get past Jacksonville
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Brahma

Brahma

Obi-Bro Kenobi-X
12,941
48,495
Genjiro said:
Saw this in an article how Al Riveron has made three calls/no calls this year that decided the game and all went in favor of NE.

• New England’s Brandin Cooks caught a 25-yard touchdown pass with 23 seconds left to beat Houston 36-33 on Sept. 24. He caught the ball with both feet in the end zone but lost control as he hit the ground out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and Riveron did not overturn it upon review.

• New York Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins caught a 4-yard touchdown pass against the Patriots, and fumbled through the back of the end zone once he crossed the line. It was ruled a touchdown on the field. Riveron overturned it. The Patriots got the ball at the 20. New England went on to win 24-17 on Oct 15.

• Then, Sunday night Jesse James caught a pass from Ben Roethlisberger over the middle, was never touched as his knee hit the ground, stretched the ball over the goal line and only then seemed to lose control of it. Riveron overturned the score, putting the ball back at the 10. New England won, 27-24.
Click to expand...

The Cooks catch was good. But OF COURSE Riverson is on the Pats payroll...

 
Brahma

Brahma

Obi-Bro Kenobi-X
12,941
48,495
Genjiro said:
Again its the subjective part of when he has the ball and makes the football move part.

I was listening to Brian Billick talk about this on Sirius who says its 100% a catch if you go by the language of the rule.

Why? Because of the phrasing in that rule book article. It says the player needs to keep possession when going to the ground blah blah but then, the rule says the word *initial* contact with the ground.

Here's the rule, verbatim from the rule book: "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession."

So, Billick was saying that if they had not included the word "initial" there, the refs and the NFL would have been right to call that play not a TD.

However, he said, if the player needs to regain control before the *initial* contact, then we need to judge this play at the moment the knee hit the ground. That was the *initial* contact, Billick said. He added that one knee is equal to two feet.

The NFL and the refs are considering the "initial" contact with the ground, to be the moment when the player went down with the ball over the line into the end zone and the ball bobbled when it hit the ground and the player never regained full control before that "initial" contact with the ground.

But oh wait, according to Billick they failed to consider that the "initial" contact had already happened (the knee), and at that moment there was full control, so like my initial take on this, he believes that once the player who wasn't touched then extended the ball into the end zone, the moment the first bit of the ball crossed the plane, it was a TD and the play was dead, and subsequent bobbling shouldn't have mattered.

He added that with a knee down (therefore the equivalent of two feet down) the player made a football move by extending his arm into the end zone.

This retarded rule is 100% getting changed in the offseason.
Click to expand...

You still hurt? Here man....

awwwww.gif
 
  • 1Cutler
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 users
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,233
i just realized how much Golden Tate's revoked touchdown from the end of the Falcons/Lions game has come back to haunt us. if that had counted as a touchdown, we would be currently lined up for the wild card spot and the Falcons would be the ones hoping to scrape into the playoffs past us.

we might have lost our playoff spot by literally a matter of inches

god dammit
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,155
19,757
Genjiro said:
A note in Rule 8.1.3 states this clearly:

If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

That is why Cooks was given the touchdown. Applies to both cases.
Click to expand...

The Cooks one was bullshit. The ball doesn't move "slightly". It starts at the top of numbers on his jersey and after hitting the ground the ball is now at the bottom of his numbers. The ball moved at least a foot from contacting the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.