Game of the year - 4:25 EST CBS - Patriots -3 @ Steelers - who you got?

[vuduchile 1,941]

Maybe this will help out vudutard since he knows the rules

 

 

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete

Im not saying he rule was applied incorrectly.

 

For the 10th focking time, Im saying the rule is flawed and inconsistent.

 

Try to keep up dingbat.

[Gladiators 1,912]

Im not saying he rule was applied incorrectly.

 

For the 10th focking time, Im saying the rule is flawed and inconsistent.

 

Try to keep up dingbat.

 

Leave him alone. It's his day off and there are much more important things to be discussing. If people keep responding to him, he has no choice but to engage.

[Thornton Melon 549]

Well, he used the words "and it was a touchdown"...

 

He was attempting to explain why the refs were wrong, and that it was actually a touchdown under the current rule. He was wrong, though.

 

He presented a good argument why the rule should be changed. That's all he did...

[IMMensaMind 460]

Which it wasn't. The league has been very clear that a receiver going to the ground in the act of making a catch has to maintain control through contact with the ground, and being in or out of the endzone or crossing the goalline has no effect on that requirement.

 

Also, there is nothing in the current ruleset about making "a football play". You've either established that you are "clearly a runner" - A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps - or you are going to the ground and have to maintain control through the ground.

 

Under Kellerman's rulebook if a receiver laid out for a pass, had it in his hands, then had his knee touch a nanosecond before his torso it would be a catch even if the ball came flaying, or maybe it would be in the end-zone, but not anywhere else on the field? Does anyone really think that would be a better setup?

No, that's not a proper characterization of 'Kellerman's rule', because it doesn't distinguish a different action other than gravity and momentum. You're not describing any football move at all. He - and I - are speaking of a move separate from merely having his knee hit the ground.

 

That makes your example bad IMO. Jesse James wasn't 'laid out'. He caught the ball, went to the ground, then turned and extended the ball over the goal line. Going to the ground is not a football move; that's a gravity move. Turning once on the ground and extending to the goal line? That's a football move.

[IMMensaMind 460]

He was attempting to explain why the refs were wrong, and that it was actually a touchdown under the current rule. He was wrong, though.

Well, your first response to me indicated to me that you felt that what he doing was arguing the 'should', and not the was. My position is that he has always been arguing that James did score a TD.

 

Regardless, I don't see how he is acknowledging that this was a proper use of existing rules. He is arguing that the existing rules are being interpreted by eggplants.

 

If a RB launches himself - in full possession of the ball - to the endzone, the play is over (and ruled a TD) the moment that the ball touches the plane. That's because there was a football move while in possession before and during the launch, as well as demonstrated possession at the time of breaking the plane.

 

There is no distinction in the rules for how these circumstances play out based upon position.

 

It is equivalent to Jesse James - once on the ground - engaged in his own 'launch', and crossed the plane. I think that Max Kellerman is in possession of the proper interpretation of the rule, and the stupidity of the rules officials (Goodell ) has double-crossed their own stupid selves, and put them in no-man's land. The NFL employees themselves are confused, and are pissing off fans even more.

 

He presented a good argument why the rule should be changed. That's all he did...

I didn't hear him arguing for a rules change. I heard him arguing that his was the proper interpretation of the existing rules, and I think he's right.

[parrot 789]

No, that's not a proper characterization of 'Kellerman's rule', because it doesn't distinguish a different action other than gravity and momentum. You're not describing any football move at all. He - and I - are speaking of a move separate from merely having his knee hit the ground.

 

That makes your example bad IMO. Jesse James wasn't 'laid out'. He caught the ball, went to the ground, then turned and extended the ball over the goal line. Going to the ground is not a football move; that's a gravity move. Turning once on the ground and extending to the goal line? That's a football move.

Again there's nothing about a "football move" in the rule; you're either clearly established as a runner by having possession and your "second foot" on the ground, which he wasn't, or you're a player going to the ground which requires you to maintain control through going to the ground, which he didn't. Reaching out with the ball has nothing to do with it.

[Djgb13 2,338]

Im not saying he rule was applied incorrectly.

 

For the 10th focking time, Im saying the rule is flawed and inconsistent.

 

Try to keep up dingbat.

And the 10th time youre still a retard whos arguing about whether its a catch or not. Vudutard getting rolled in this thread and its making him mad

[TD Ryan2 315]

dingbat.

 

you old fock.... no wonder you don't get it... with your dingbat Archie Bunker re-runs and VCR blinking "12:00" and Steel Curtain days ... leave the modern game, with all these newfangled HD replays to us... it ain't your cup o' tea meathead!

[Djgb13 2,338]

 

you old fock.... no wonder you don't get it... with your dingbat Archie Bunker re-runs and VCR blinking "12:00" and Steel Curtain days ... leave the modern game, with all these newfangled HD replays to us... it ain't your cup o' tea meathead!

Go easy on him. Youre not supposed to be too rough with the special needs kids

[Thornton Melon 549]

I didn't hear him arguing for a rules change. I heard him arguing that his was the proper interpretation of the existing rules, and I think he's right.

 

I didn't say he was arguing for a rules change. What I meant was that in his flawed attempt to claim it was a TD under current rules, he ended up making a good argument why the rule should be changed so that type of play is a TD.

 

He was wrong, and you are wrong for thinking he was right.

 

Jesus Christ....Mensa, my ass...

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

I didn't say he was arguing for a rules change. What I meant was that in his flawed attempt to claim it was a TD under current rules, he ended up making a good argument why the rule should be changed so that type of play is a TD.

 

He was wrong, and you are wrong for thinking he was right.

 

Jesus Christ....Mensa, my ass...

No, you are wrong for thinking this will end well.

[Herbivore 917]

This thread has been great. bunch of haters and whiners in here. The rules are set, the players should know them. If you attempt to make a catch while going to the ground, you need to maintain possession thru the ground, he did not do that. If you cannot guarantee that you are going to do that don't reach, just make the catch..go to the ground..you have been defended. The Carr thing is similar, with people saying its a stupid rule. Maybe it is a stupid rule, but it is a rule, Carr has to know that, and not reach there. He has to protect the ball, he didn't, they lose.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,931]

This thread has been great. bunch of haters and whiners in here. The rules are set, the players should know them. If you attempt to make a catch while going to the ground, you need to maintain possession thru the ground, he did not do that. If you cannot guarantee that you are going to do that don't reach, just make the catch..go to the ground..you have been defended. The Carr thing is similar, with people saying its a stupid rule. Maybe it is a stupid rule, but it is a rule, Carr has to know that, and not reach there. He has to protect the ball, he didn't, they lose.

TS/dr.

[drobeski 3,061]

Great call, great game, great outcome.

 

Triple great!!!

[IMMensaMind 460]

Again there's nothing about a "football move" in the rule; you're either clearly established as a runner by having possession and your "second foot" on the ground, which he wasn't, or you're a player going to the ground which requires you to maintain control through going to the ground, which he didn't. Reaching out with the ball has nothing to do with it.

 

Wait.

 

You're saying that the innumerable times all the play-by-play announcers - including Mike Periera - cite "he made a 'football move' - after a reception, that is not the primary factor that establishes control of the ball?

[drobeski 3,061]

Let it go. Pats won, call was right.

[parrot 789]

Wait.

 

You're saying that the innumerable times all the play-by-play announcers - including Mike Periera - cite "he made a 'football move' - after a reception, that is not the primary factor that establishes control of the ball?

I'm saying there's nothing about a "football move" in the current rule-set. That terminology was removed several years ago because all it did was muddy the water. There are a few listed examples of football moves that can help demonstrate that a receiver has clearly become a runner, but that's only after satisfying the preliminary criteria of "remain(ing) upright" in possession of the ball with both feet on the ground. Since James didn't remain upright or get both feet on the ground with possession, he was never established as a runner and falls under the player going to the ground scenario. This requires that he maintains control through going to the ground to complete the catch, and at that point supposed football moves are irrelevant. Kellerman wants to mix and match different elements to try and make his case but they are mutually exclusive scenarios.

[nospk 230]

There should have been a def holding call on Eric Rowe on the interception that he tipped.

He pulls down Rogers, reaches over him & tips it to Harmon.

[parrot 789]

There should have been a def holding call on Eric Rowe on the interception that he tipped.

He pulls down Rogers, reaches over him & tips it to Harmon.

 

Yeah, and there was an illegal pick on the 70 yard play that got them down there in the first place.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I didn't say he was arguing for a rules change. What I meant was that in his flawed attempt to claim it was a TD under current rules, he ended up making a good argument why the rule should be changed so that type of play is a TD.

 

He was wrong, and you are wrong for thinking he was right.

 

Jesus Christ....Mensa, my ass...

I think I'm getting it here. If one attempts to engage a poster with whom one disagrees for more than 2 focking posts, they can't handle it and go the insult route.

 

Here's the first thing you wrote.

 

No, he made a very good case why it should be a touchdown. Maybe (hopefully) they'll change the rule to match his argument.

You have now claimed:

 

I didn't say he was arguing for a rules change.

Here's where you wrote something ambiguous; where what you wrote could be interpreted two different ways. You used the characterization "SHOULD". What you really meant is that Kellerman's argument wasn't actually a heartfelt appeal to have the play ruled a touchdown based upon existing rules (which is EXACTLY what he was doing), your characterization of "SHOULD" reflects the fact that you disagreed with Kellerman - that the rules don't actually describe what his characterization of the play is - and thus you used the word "SHOULD" only to imply that your position was in agreement with Kellerman's intent, but DISagreement that the rules support what he said.

 

Again: the problem wasn't me. The problem was your decision to write your post vaguely. From there, we went different directions...and your direction included deciding to lob an insult about my intelligence at me, even though I'd hope by now that you can understand how I concluded what I did about your post.

 

Well, he used the words "and it was a touchdown"...

I wrote this in response to your 'SHOULD' post because Kellerman wasn't arguing based upon a stance of what should be - he wasn't arguing that the rules should be changed - he was arguing that it was a TD under existing rules, and only imbecile refs led by the imbecile Goodell have gotten so far afield of what the spirit of a rule is that they've allowed two different badly written rules which have text in conflict with one another to trump common sense and uphold what was clearly a touchdown by the spirit of the game in keeping with the football move and plane breaking in control rule.

 

He was attempting to explain why the refs were wrong, and that it was actually a touchdown under the current rule. He was wrong, though.

And we are finally saying the same thing here, but I interpreted your earlier "SHOULD" as something different than this.

 

He presented a good argument why the rule should be changed. That's all he did...

 

To you, that's what he was doing. In his own mind, he doesn't find that a rules change is needed. All that is needed is for the NFL to get its head out of its ass.

 

Your entire argument with me boils down to your characterization of what Kellerman did. You initially characterized his argument a "what should be" - read: "a rule should be changed" - and my argument was that he never took a stance where a rule should be changed.

 

Capisce? No need for further insults.

[Gladiators 1,912]

 

Yeah, and there was an illegal pick on the 70 yard play that got them down there in the first place.

Not sure about that. We need to consult Djgb for the official rule.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I'm saying there's nothing about a "football move" in the current rule-set. That terminology was removed several years ago because all it did was muddy the water. There are a few listed examples of football moves that can help demonstrate that a receiver has clearly become a runner, but that's only after satisfying the preliminary criteria of "remain(ing) upright" in possession of the ball with both feet on the ground.

I view this as a contradiction. The notion of 'a football move' remains, because it is the only way one can suitably demonstrate that a player has control of a ball, other than a certain amount of time.

 

Since James didn't remain upright or get both feet on the ground with possession, he was never established as a runner and falls under the player going to the ground scenario.

Bzzzt. Wrong. As Kellerman - and pretty much everyone who knows anything about football can tell you - one knee (or one azzcheek) equals two feet.

 

This requires that he maintains control through going to the ground to complete the catch, and at that point supposed football moves are irrelevant. Kellerman wants to mix and match different elements to try and make his case but they are mutually exclusive scenarios.

 

And your conclusion is flawed based upon your flawed understanding of what constitutes two feet on the ground. Two feet inbounds is not the only way to determine legal possession inbounds.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

There should have been a def holding call on Eric Rowe on the interception that he tipped.

He pulls down Rogers, reaches over him & tips it to Harmon.

Umm, I didn't see it that way and neither did the refs. Seems like a sour grapes play.

[Herbivore 917]

TS/dr.

I don't know what that means

[Hardcore troubadour 12,931]

I don't know what that means

Too stupid, didn't read.

[parrot 789]

I view this as a contradiction. The notion of 'a football move' remains, because it is the only way one can suitably demonstrate that a player has control of a ball, other than a certain amount of time.

 

 

Bzzzt. Wrong. As Kellerman - and pretty much everyone who knows anything about football can tell you - one knee (or one azzcheek) equals two feet.

 

 

And your conclusion is flawed based upon your flawed understanding of what constitutes two feet on the ground. Two feet inbounds is not the only way to determine legal possession inbounds.

Read the rules. They establish pretty definitively what constitutes being a runner in possession and absent that the receiver falls under the going to ground rules. You and Max can blather all day about one knee equaling two feet - which is for establishing inbounds, not control, as anyone who knows anything about football can tell you - and "football moves" until you're blue in the face. That doesn't have fock all to do with a receiver going to the ground.

 

 

 

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

 

Thanks for playing.

[vuduchile 1,941]

 

you old fock.... no wonder you don't get it... with your dingbat Archie Bunker re-runs and VCR blinking "12:00" and Steel Curtain days ... leave the modern game, with all these newfangled HD replays to us... it ain't your cup o' tea meathead!

What I get is that the NFL game is a shell of its formal self. And if youre among the group that thinks instant replay, challenges and reviewing every score and turnover have made the game better, then all your football opinions are suspect.

 

Also, I hate the Steelers and the Patriots equally.

 

Also, also. New doesnt always = better whippersnapper.

[drobeski 3,061]

Was it the Eli Rogers or Bryant TD where the receiver blantantly clearly pushed off, with no offensive pass interference call ?

[Vince44 202]

Steelers can't beat the Patriots.

 

Been like this since the AFC Championship Game in Jan 2002.

[drobeski 3,061]

Read the rules. They establish pretty definitively what constitutes being a runner in possession and absent that the receiver falls under the going to ground rules. You and Max can blather all day about one knee equaling two feet - which is for establishing inbounds, not control, as anyone who knows anything about football can tell you - and "football moves" until you're blue in the face. That doesn't have fock all to do with a receiver going to the ground.

 

 

Thanks for playing.

a simple post of the rule is all it took to win this thread by TKO.

Good job Parrot.

[Thornton Melon 549]

I think I'm getting it here. If one attempts to engage a poster with whom one disagrees for more than 2 focking posts, they can't handle it and go the insult route.

 

Here's the first thing you wrote.

 

 

You have now claimed:

 

 

Here's where you wrote something ambiguous; where what you wrote could be interpreted two different ways. You used the characterization "SHOULD". What you really meant is that Kellerman's argument wasn't actually a heartfelt appeal to have the play ruled a touchdown based upon existing rules (which is EXACTLY what he was doing), your characterization of "SHOULD" reflects the fact that you disagreed with Kellerman - that the rules don't actually describe what his characterization of the play is - and thus you used the word "SHOULD" only to imply that your position was in agreement with Kellerman's intent, but DISagreement that the rules support what he said.

 

Again: the problem wasn't me. The problem was your decision to write your post vaguely. From there, we went different directions...and your direction included deciding to lob an insult about my intelligence at me, even though I'd hope by now that you can understand how I concluded what I did about your post.

 

 

I wrote this in response to your 'SHOULD' post because Kellerman wasn't arguing based upon a stance of what should be - he wasn't arguing that the rules should be changed - he was arguing that it was a TD under existing rules, and only imbecile refs led by the imbecile Goodell have gotten so far afield of what the spirit of a rule is that they've allowed two different badly written rules which have text in conflict with one another to trump common sense and uphold what was clearly a touchdown by the spirit of the game in keeping with the football move and plane breaking in control rule.

 

 

And we are finally saying the same thing here, but I interpreted your earlier "SHOULD" as something different than this.

 

 

 

To you, that's what he was doing. In his own mind, he doesn't find that a rules change is needed. All that is needed is for the NFL to get its head out of its ass.

 

Your entire argument with me boils down to your characterization of what Kellerman did. You initially characterized his argument a "what should be" - read: "a rule should be changed" - and my argument was that he never took a stance where a rule should be changed.

 

Capisce? No need for further insults.

 

 

I envy your free time.

[DonS 3,096]

Didn't see if this was mentioned, but I was surprised Gronk didn't get flagged for taunting after that 2 pt conversion. Certainly looked like he pointed right at the dude and started his retard-like laughing/shaking.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,931]

 

 

I envy your free time.

That's slang for you kicked my ass.

[Thornton Melon 549]

That's slang for you kicked my ass.

 

Not even close, Costanza.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Read the rules. They establish pretty definitively what constitutes being a runner in possession and absent that the receiver falls under the going to ground rules. You and Max can blather all day about one knee equaling two feet - which is for establishing inbounds, not control, as anyone who knows anything about football can tell you - and "football moves" until you're blue in the face. That doesn't have fock all to do with a receiver going to the ground.

 

 

 

Thanks for playing.

 

Uh...he did maintain control after initial contact with the ground. He never bobbled the ball at all when his knee hit the ground. In fact, he had so much control that he twisted his body 90˚ to the left and reached BOTH HANDS WITH THE BALL OVER THE GOAL LINE. The line you've bolded doesn't support your claim; it supports mine.

 

And Larry Fitzgerald's. He was interviewed right before MNF and asked about this exact thing. He disagrees with you, and agrees with me. I'll go with a the first-ballot hall of fame WR here, instead of a gaseous parrot, thank you very much.

[IMMensaMind 460]

a simple post of the rule is all it took to win this thread by TKO.

Good job Parrot.

Except it wasn't, and you're clearly full blown homerism right now.

 

That rule he posted demands control be maintained after "initial contact with the ground". James did that. His knee hit, then his thigh hit, then he turned and extended the ball over the goal line, which you cannot do without control.

 

Game. Set. Match.

[drobeski 3,061]

Except it wasn't, and you're clearly full blown homerism right now.

 

That rule he posted demands control be maintained after "initial contact with the ground". James did that. His knee hit, then his thigh hit, then he turned and extended the ball over the goal line, which you cannot do without control.

 

Game. Set. Match.

"until after" he lost control after, after is included in the need to maintain control...he didn't.

You lose

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Yes. Now put on your fedora and go for a walk. You could use some air.

You know, you could have just said huh. Interesting. Didnt know that, like 14 posts ago and saved the hamster a lot of work.

[IMMensaMind 460]

"until after" he lost control after, after is included in the need to maintain control...he didn't.

You lose

'Until after' was demonstrated, by making the move with the football thrust over the goal line. The play - as established by the rule parrot posted - was determined the moment that control was determined after "initial contact with the ground", because he turned with the ball and extended his arms out to the goal line.

 

Geronimo Allison was determined to have possessed the ball yesterday, and moved FAR LESS than James did after initial reception; did not go to the ground, and was stripped. It was ruled a completed catch, and a strip.

 

James caught the ball; went to a knee then sat on the ground, THEN twisted with the ball in both hands and extended it over the goal line.

 

Touchdown. You lose.

 

I can't lose here. These aren't my teams.

[edjr 5,709]

 

VCR blinking "12:00"