Now we'll have the privilege of hearing and reading about how the Squeelers were robbed by the James call while Philly got away with it..
Knock me over with a feather! Oh those poor poor Squeeler fans now have to face the fact that life just isn't fair and the league wasn't going to just hand them yet another Lombardi trophy . 
Raise your hand if you feel their pain.. lol
Now they get to join the ranks of conspiracy theory-land.. As if they were never there to begin with. 

(02-05-2018, 12:27 PM)grampahol Wrote: Now we'll have the privilege of hearing and reading about how the Squeelers were robbed by the James call while Philly got away with it..
Knock me over with a feather! Oh those poor poor Squeeler fans now have to face the fact that life just isn't fair and the league wasn't going to just hand them yet another Lombardi trophy . 
Raise your hand if you feel their pain.. lol
Now they get to join the ranks of conspiracy theory-land.. As if they were never there to begin with. 

It's a stupid rule that I think will get overturned from what I'm hearing from the owners and the commissioner.

But ...... the way it is written, I think the refs got both of those calls correct, just disagree with the BS rule.

Once a receiver makes a catch with obvious control of football, the ground should never be able to cause an incomplete pass, just like the ground cannot negate a runners yardage or cause a fumble.

Also, if a receiver catches the ball with obvious control, he should be able to stick the ball across the plane just like the runners do without having to take two steps to 'establish' himself as a runner!  BS, STUPID, DUMB, AND IGNORANT RULE!! 

(02-05-2018, 01:28 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: It's a stupid rule that I think will get overturned from what I'm hearing from the owners and the commissioner.

But ...... the way it is written, I think the refs got both of those calls correct, just disagree with the BS rule.

Once a receiver makes a catch with obvious control of football, the ground should never be able to cause an incomplete pass, just like the ground cannot negate a runners yardage or cause a fumble.

Also, if a receiver catches the ball with obvious control, he should be able to stick the ball across the plane just like the runners do without having to take two steps to 'establish' himself as a runner!  BS, STUPID, DUMB, AND IGNORANT RULE!! 

Agree and the only way I see the ground causing it to be incomplete is when a WR makes a diving catch. 

Then believe he should have control all the way through. 

But if they make the catch and get two feet down with control without bobbling ball ?  Then it should never be called a fumble. 

(02-05-2018, 12:27 PM)grampahol Wrote: Now we'll have the privilege of hearing and reading about how the Squeelers were robbed by the James call while Philly got away with it..
Knock me over with a feather! Oh those poor poor Squeeler fans now have to face the fact that life just isn't fair and the league wasn't going to just hand them yet another Lombardi trophy . 
Raise your hand if you feel their pain.. lol
Now they get to join the ranks of conspiracy theory-land.. As if they were never there to begin with. 

But know one thing for sure. 

steeler fan was cheering their butts off for Philly, but then wanting to cry over spilled milk. 

Karma was served cold and they deserved every bite.   Just the name Blake Bortles breaks me out in laughter still.

Although they dish it out well. They take it as is if a bariatric proctologists forgot to lube his glove hand.

Might be how they received the moniker "squealers".   

(02-05-2018, 01:51 PM)Go Cards Wrote: But know one thing for sure. 

steeler fan was cheering their butts off for Philly, but then wanting to cry over spilled milk. 

Karma was served cold and they deserved every bite.   Just the name Blake Bortles breaks me out in laughter still.  

Although they dish it out well. They take it as is if a bariatric proctologists forgot to lube his glove hand.

Might be how they received the moniker "squealers".   

Well said.  The James play was completely different than the Ertz play.  According to the rule, I don't like, both calls were correct.

Believe it will be changed in near future.

(02-05-2018, 03:13 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Believe it will be changed in near future.

My son, who watches talking heads and sports news, says even RG isn't happy with it.

Wait for the flood of bitter tears to overflow the banks of the Ohio river . 

(02-05-2018, 01:28 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: It's a stupid rule that I think will get overturned from what I'm hearing from the owners and the commissioner.

But ...... the way it is written, I think the refs got both of those calls correct, just disagree with the BS rule.

Once a receiver makes a catch with obvious control of football, the ground should never be able to cause an incomplete pass, just like the ground cannot negate a runners yardage or cause a fumble.

Also, if a receiver catches the ball with obvious control, he should be able to stick the ball across the plane just like the runners do without having to take two steps to 'establish' himself as a runner!  BS, STUPID, DUMB, AND IGNORANT RULE!! 

This

(02-05-2018, 01:28 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: It's a stupid rule that I think will get overturned from what I'm hearing from the owners and the commissioner.

But ...... the way it is written, I think the refs got both of those calls correct, just disagree with the BS rule.

Once a receiver makes a catch with obvious control of football, the ground should never be able to cause an incomplete pass, just like the ground cannot negate a runners yardage or cause a fumble.

Also, if a receiver catches the ball with obvious control, he should be able to stick the ball across the plane just like the runners do without having to take two steps to 'establish' himself as a runner!  BS, STUPID, DUMB, AND IGNORANT RULE!! 

Yup

And there's another half dozen BS rules I hope they clean up this off season. 

Somehow, regardless if a change is made in the rule or not, it will bite someone in the arse.

The rule will be changed to If the players shoes aren't tied to league standards it's not a catch .
That'll clear things up . The refs will have to measure just how much of the shoestring is hanging out from the knot.. 

(02-05-2018, 01:51 PM)Go Cards Wrote: But know one thing for sure. 

steeler fan was cheering their butts off for Philly, but then wanting to cry over spilled milk. 

Karma was served cold and they deserved every bite.   Just the name Blake Bortles breaks me out in laughter still.  

Although they dish it out well. They take it as is if a bariatric proctologists forgot to lube his glove hand.

Might be how they received the moniker "squealers".   

Im not sure you know what karma is.....

Anyhoo, yes we we're cheering our butts off for Philly but no one was crying. Im not sure why we would be? 

(02-05-2018, 01:28 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: It's a stupid rule that I think will get overturned from what I'm hearing from the owners and the commissioner.

But ...... the way it is written, I think the refs got both of those calls correct, just disagree with the BS rule.

Once a receiver makes a catch with obvious control of football, the ground should never be able to cause an incomplete pass, just like the ground cannot negate a runners yardage or cause a fumble.

Also, if a receiver catches the ball with obvious control, he should be able to stick the ball across the plane just like the runners do without having to take two steps to 'establish' himself as a runner!  BS, STUPID, DUMB, AND IGNORANT RULE!! 

My issue with the rule is that it only says that you must maintain control through initial contact, but it doesn't define when initial contact ends. I would think that once you make a football move, like reaching for the goal line with the ball, that initial contact has ended and a new one has begun, but Al Riveron doesn't see it that way. It's open to interpretation and unfortunately mine doesn't count but Al's does, so here we are..... 

(02-10-2018, 07:56 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: My issue with the rule is that it only says that you must maintain control through initial contact, but it doesn't define when initial contact ends. I would think that once you make a football move, like reaching for the goal line with the ball, that initial contact has ended and a new one has begun, but Al Riveron doesn't see it that way. It's open to interpretation and unfortunately mine doesn't count but Al's does, so here we are..... 

Yes they need to make it clear exactly what constitutes a catch and what constitutes a touchdown. Right now it seems like the refs and the NFL don't even know their own rules.

(02-05-2018, 01:51 PM)Go Cards Wrote: But know one thing for sure. 

steeler fan was cheering their butts off for Philly, but then wanting to cry over spilled milk. 

Karma was served cold and they deserved every bite.   Just the name Blake Bortles breaks me out in laughter still.  

Although they dish it out well. They take it as is if a bariatric proctologists forgot to lube his glove hand.

Might be how they received the moniker "squealers".   

(02-05-2018, 03:19 PM)grampahol Wrote: Wait for the flood of bitter tears to overflow the banks of the Ohio river . 

Two things:

1) This should be in smack.

2) I hope y'all weren't holding your breath....  

Personally, I don't really get where the confusion is.

No, the ground can't cause a fumble when a player is running it, but he has also had the ball for a substantial amount of time and has made football moves.

If you catch it and have control of it, then you shouldn't lose control when you hit the ground.

It's about establishing control and keeping it.

Like the one in the Steelers-Patriots game: yes, it looks like he has control, but ask yourself this: if he had control, would he have lost that ball? Was there ever a moment when you said "he has that ball and it can't be knocked out by a light punch"? When I saw that live, I was thinking "there's no way that's a catch."

In this Dez Bryant play, it's tough to see, but the ball hits the ground and he loses it. It wasn't like he caught it, was running, dove, and then lost it; he lost it in the process of jumping and coming down with the ball,

This one of Calvin Johnson, how can you determine that he ever had a grip on the ball or was just bringing it down like a siam dunk?

If you change this rule, then you'll have all kinds of disputes over what a catch is more than now. Just control it and keep control through the catch. It's simple.

(02-11-2018, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Two things:

1) This should be in smack.  That is up to the mods and am fine if it is moved. Did not really pay attention to forum, just clicked todays posts. 
But do not think you should be allowed to post in any forum other than Politics & Religion as long as you are sporting your political smack talking sig. 

2) I hope y'all weren't holding your breath….      Wasn't, knew the Bengals had no chance this year when the let Whit and Zeitler walk. So happy with how it all turned out

 

Yeah .move it to Smack.. My feelings won't get hurt .

The rules are made to be interpreted by dummies I guess..  Seems pretty straightforward .. .you either catch the ball or you don't catch the ball, but in the world of NFL refereedom even a sip of water could be interpreted as inadvertently spilling water into your stomach .  

(02-06-2018, 08:38 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Somehow, regardless if a change is made in the rule or not, it will bite someone in the arse.

Truth

Someone will always be on the wrong side no matter what