I added a couple paragraphs on edit you might have missed.
How are you not getting this? The “obvious” was in referense to the ball coming out, which EVERYONE, even you, agrees with. That’s why it’s obvious.
That has to be the stupidest, most ill-concieved, subjective rule in an organized team sport in the history of athletic competition.
The rule doesn’t even seem compatible with other rules that determine what constitutes a touchdown.
nevremoind
It’s not really a rule to determine what constitutes a touchdown, it’s a rule to determine what is or is not a catch. Additionally, it’s a pretty black and white rule. What part do you think is subjective?
Uh, that was “obviously” exaggeration. It was my way of saying, “Uh, at some point, EVERYONE lets go of the ball, if even to just hand it to the ref.” “He let go of it!” is a stupid argument, because the matter at hand is WHEN he let go of it and what happened before he did. Either way, not a big deal - carry on.
Maybe you aren’t following the argument too closely, but people have brought up comparisons to running plays without hyperbole or exaggeration. The outrage has blinded many to any semblance of rational logic.
All because a nice guy receiver on a lovable loser team did a Plaxico Burress/DeSean Jackson style boneheaded play. Don’t change the rules for those guys, no. But for Megatron? This becomes the “stupidest, most ill-concieved, subjective rule in an organized team sport in the history of athletic competition.” Yeah.
And what, exactly, is the stupidest, most ill-conceived rule in the history of sports? “When you catch the ball in the air, you can’t drop it when you hit the ground.”
If you think this was a bad call because it was a two-move thing, you don’t hate the rule at all. You hate that this rule was incorrectly applied to this play. But no, outrage always wins out on the internet.
I’m glad we agree that he let go of it. Now the question is, and this is the only question that matters based on the rules of the NFL, did the ball come out of his hand as a result of his falling to the ground?
From my brief, inexperienced 20-some viewings - it was a result of his falling to the ground after making a football move (3 feet, a hand and a butt) and after contact. He shouldn’t have put doubt in the officials’ eyes, but that’s what I see.
And the crux of that question is this:
-
If yes, then you think the rule was applied correctly.
-
If no, then you think the rule shouldn’t have been applied to his secondary move.
In NEITHER case is the rule bad. But no doubt we’ll have an avalanche of complaints from stupid fans forcing the NFL to worsen the game this off-season. Another pass-friendly rule change; just what the league needs! Defense is for suckers; let’s switch to Arena League rules.
On preview, so you think that the referee made a poor judgement call by applying the rule when he shouldn’t have, right?
The next question is clear: Was his fall one act or did he land and then do something else. I say it was all one act because there is no way he could have ever maintained his balance. In other words, there was no way possible for him not to hit the ground.
Is that fair, or do you think he could have stayed on his feet?
I am assuming that our opponents in this thread are otherwise rational, but as a result of a perfect storm of crazy they all decided to start Shaun Hill in their fantasy leagues this week. After kickoff they realized their mistakes and a freak injury to Stafford gave them a glimmer of hope that was cruelly snatched away in the waning seconds of the game.
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with the rule, I have a problem with the replay officials. It doesn’t show the officials during the play, but the screen flashes a big “Touchdown!” graphic, so I’m assuming the officials initially called for a TD. I definitely have a problem with them reversing that.
Nope, he was on his way down. But plenty of people are perfectly capable of gaining yardage/making (stumbling) football moves while on their way down to the ground after contact.
Not seeing the hate for the Shockey catch, and personally prefer that rule. If you’re offended by the “toe just barely brushing the grass” you could require it actually hit the ground I suppose, though that becomes harder to determine. But there’s more to being a good secondary player than being able to hit a guy after he makes a catch - like preventing him from making the damn catch in the first place. Plus that makes that sort of thing a fumble, and outside the end zone the defense will recover more often than not, so it’s not like such play won’t be rewarded.
Fair enough, I can respect that disagreement.
IMO, if he couldn’t have stayed off the ground after the landing because he had no balance, then going all the way to the ground is part of a single fall.
I think it’s the feet that are confusing the issue. Imagine instead of his feet, he was upside down and the first thing to hit the ground was his helmet. After his helmet hits, then his body proper hits the ground and the ball pops out.
I say this is the same as what actually happened. Do you see this hypothetical as a different case or the same deal?
Waited until I got a chance to see the video before commenting. Looked like a clean catch for a TD to me. If the rule says otherwise, we need a better rule.
This play probaly happens multiple times a game, every game, for teh past several years now.
I encourage everyone in this thread to watch closely next week and keep an eye out specifically for instances of the receivers not holding onto the ball, and whether or not the ruled incompletions feel more like completions to you.
(In fairness, I remember getting pissed several times during the 2006 season when the rule was new and the receiver would get leveled with my team recovering the fumble, only to have it ruled incomplete. Still much better than the “two feet plus a football move” variant, though. Or maybe that’s what variant they were using at the time; I can’t say for sure.)
I think that once you make an argument that puts the hypothetical person standing on their head, you are at that point standing on your own head trying to make your argument. I also think that a day and a half is a little too long for a replay official to be sticking his head in that old-timey camera.
It’s a legitimate hypothetical. We agree that even though his feet hit first, he was unable to maintain balance and was guaranteed going to the ground.
I maintain that the feet hitting first is confusing the issue; because he was going down no matter what, any other body part that also signifies being “down” works just as well. So how about the knee instead? Pretend he layed out for the ball, caught it in the air, his knee hits the ground, then when his arms hit the ground a fraction of a second later, the ball pops out.
Is that a different case, and if so, why?
Munch I think you agree that CJ had control of the ball, had no choice but to fall, and lost control of the ball as a result of the fall (worst poem ever).
The rule says that that is an incomplete pass. The rule doesn’t say anything about football moves in this situation.
If I have mischaracterized your thoughts on the play in any way please let me know.
Hey genius. Inadvertent whistles indicate the end of a play just as clearly as intentional ones. And that last statement somehow is supposed to make people take your opinion seriously when you don’t know the rules? Thanks for playing.
Yup, they do try and knock the ball loose. Every defender is taught to do so. If the whistle hasn’t blown you absolutely hit the guy when he’s on the ground, because the play is still live. That’s the way football has always worked. That’s why they give those guys in stripey shirts whistles.
You people are twisting yourself into pretzels trying to weasel this play into somehow being a catch. Blame the player, not the rule. He’s the one who screwed up.