2. "How many kickers do the Chargers have to go through to find one that " In response to Reply # 0
doesn't miss at least one kick a week?? DAMN
____ Some will tell you that they love you but they've got an ulterior motive - Oh what a shame They will tell you that they need you but they've got an ulterior motive - Personal gain
22. "yeah, and I was completely unbiased as far as who won/lost..." In response to Reply # 21
but, damn...I was under the impression it was a TD the instant the ball broke the plane. Didn't realize the "control to the ground" shit applied on those.
...I'm from the era when A.I. was the answer, now they think ai is the answer - Marlon Craft
24. "i obviously am completely biased" In response to Reply # 22 Sun Dec-17-17 07:30 PM by thejerseytornado
but the whole completing the process of going to the ground thing has been a part of all catches for years. it looked like a catch, but that was an easy replay overturn as the rule stands.
and if it had been deemed a catch, the other (less than, cuz y'all hate the pats) half of the fans watching the game would have been livid because dude clearly dropped the pass.
edit: in other words, the "catch/not-a-catch" problem is a problem regardless of the specific rule. there is no rule that could exist that wouldn't have that problem.
----------- you think we playing chess, but i'm playing mad-making. Basaglia
32. "Even by the definition of the awful rule he got it" In response to Reply # 24 Sun Dec-17-17 08:04 PM by blueeclipse
The ball moved on the way down but at the end of the catch he had possession and completed it. I'm not even going to argue the crossing the plane.....I'm saying by the definition of that terrible fuckin rule he completed the catch. He did. You can't even argue that the ball touched the ground cause his right hand was under it the whole time. It was a fucking terrible call. Do not defend this.
52. "break the plane with possession = TD" In response to Reply # 51
instead of this conditional garbage where if ball breaks the plane on a run play = automatic TD, ball breaks the plane after being caught in the air: not an automatic TD.
If this is the best rule the NFL can come up with, it's even more poorly run than I thought.
60. "He broke the plane..." In response to Reply # 51
That's a TD. The play happens in the field of play....I'd still argue that it's a catch cause even though the ball moved he had control over it and made a football move. He had his hand under the fuckin ball. It's an awful rule but the situational and irrational interpretation makes it even more awful.
Ive seen a bunch of these calls stand as well. Xavier Grimble, the Steelers backup TE had a catch similar to this last year against the Bengals that was called a TD and rightfully so.
I understand if you go to the ground and LOSE THE FOOTBALL. That's different. But come on man.....anyone arguing that this was an ok call even with the rule is reaching.
63. "It *WAS* an OK call, by letter of the rule. There is no grey area." In response to Reply # 60 Mon Dec-18-17 02:31 PM by Brew
>But come on man.....anyone arguing that >this was an ok call even with the rule is reaching.
I don't like the RULE at all. It's a stupid rule.
BUT THE REFS MADE THE RIGHT CALL BASED ON SAID RULE. The rule is in place. Hate it if you want. I do. That should have been a touchdown.
But the refs made the correct call. There is no grey area at all. Zero. None. By letter of the rule as it is currently constituted, that was the ONLY WAY TO RULE ON THAT PLAY. That's not reaching. Trying to say it was the INCORRECT call is reaching, and probably even outright lying. THERE IS NO WAY TO READ THE RULE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REFS MADE A WRONG CALL. They did not. They did their jobs correctly.
dula dibiasi Member since Apr 05th 2004 21925 posts
Sun Dec-17-17 07:32 PM
26. "came in here to post the exact same thing." In response to Reply # 21
i've barely watched nfl this year. just too much bullshit. how is that not a catch? it's ridiculous.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
27. "I watched about 10 minutes of the first half" In response to Reply # 26
and then turned back to it for the final drive when I saw the score. When the rules of how to score points don’t make sense, it’s hard to care. Sterling Shepard’s TD not counting against Philly was my breaking point. Too stupid for me.
dula dibiasi Member since Apr 05th 2004 21925 posts
Sun Dec-17-17 07:49 PM
31. "makes no damn sense." In response to Reply # 27
these guys are out here making incredible jaw-dropping plays, and all for naught. they get overturned on some bullshit technicality.
kinda glad i've almost completely weaned this league out of my system. didn't play FFL this year for the first time since 2000, and i've watched maybe 5 total games.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
38. "Honest question - what's confusing about that rule/play?" In response to Reply # 27 Sun Dec-17-17 08:58 PM by LA2Philly
You have to maintain control of the ball until you're down. If you don't, that supersedes any other criteria.
The play you linked to is pretty cut and dry when it comes to being incomplete - I can understand the confusion on the Steelers one bc dude was outside the end zone so people may think him breaking the goal-line means it's a catch (it doesn't, as I said above, you have to maintain control of the catch the entire time so that over-rules anything else) but here Shepherd clearly didn't maintain possession so that's clearly not a catch.
--------------------------------- <--The drought is over
"have fun reveling in your pettiness tho" (C) Dula summing up 98% of OKS
"I didnt finish a damn thing...matter of fact I jerked off after she left." -Kobe speaking to investigators
39. "it’s a stupid rule" In response to Reply # 38 Sun Dec-17-17 10:08 PM by DJR
Shepard could’ve spiked the ball after he got his feet in and it’s cool?
A TD should be a TD, circumstances should be the same. It’s like saying you’ve gotta swish your FT’s or they don’t count but any other shot just has to go through the hoop. So let’s take 5 minutes after a FT trying to tell if the ball nicked the rim a little bit and overturn it if it did.
I understand the rule I just think it’s stupid and don’t understand why it’s a rule.
47. "RE: Honest question - what's confusing about that rule/play?" In response to Reply # 38
>You have to maintain control of the ball until you're down. >If you don't, that supersedes any other criteria.
>The play you linked to is pretty cut and dry when it comes to >being incomplete - I can understand the confusion on the >Steelers one bc dude was outside the end zone so people may >think him breaking the goal-line means it's a catch (it >doesn't, as I said above, you have to maintain control of the >catch the entire time so that over-rules anything else) but >here Shepherd clearly didn't maintain possession so that's >clearly not a catch. Because in any other scoring instance, the moment the ball breaks the plane OR if you have 2 feet down in the end zone it's a TD. It doesn't matter if you are falling out of bounds or not. As long as you maintain control, in the end zone, with 2 feet down. And I even hate THAT rule.
You can't have 3 different sets of scoring rules. If an RB does a "football move" and the nose crosses the plane it's a TD, but if a WR catches the ball, has 2 feet in bounds and is falling out of bounds it's not? Not to mention we've seen the refs make the call a TD as long as a catch is in the end zone with 2 feet in bounds (there have been plenty of times where a player catches the ball and drags the 2nd toe in bounds falling out of bounds and the ball comes loose, still a TD because both feet were in bounds when the player makes the catch)
But to say that the Shepard catch WASN'T a TD is absolutely disgraceful. And I HATE the Giants, but that is ridiculous. Same with Jesse James...you can't say it's not a catch when he made a "football move" to get in the end zone. Not to mention the catch/not a catch is made on an inconsistent basis. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price
33. "Yeah, I know. Just sick of it" In response to Reply # 30
If a runner dives over the top and breaks the plane and gets thrown back and fumbles, it’s a TD. But this isn’t. Shepard’s wasn’t. Run out of bounds and reach the ball over the top of the pylon and it’s a touchdown. How long do you have to have the ball in the end zone for it to be a TD? Take 5 steps and fall down and drop it and you didn’t control it to the ground? What if you just spike it in celebration right away?
54. "I think they need to extend "making a football move" to falling down" In response to Reply # 21
with control of the ball. That would make both Dez's non catch and the Jesse James non-catch yesterday into catches. ______________________________ http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg
66. "pretty much. Kizer has flaws and might not be the guy" In response to Reply # 59
but you don't know right now, not in his current situation. they are missing their best player on offense (remember how Prescott looked without his franchise LT?) and the skill position talent is inconsistent at best.
Goff also got new coaches, and that should be next for Kizer. despite me supporting Hue all of last year and as a OC, he's really gone off the deep end this season.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
