NFL 2017

[blastula]

Satisfying finish to an entertaining season. Best playoffs in a while, very worthy final 4 and final 2. Wow, what would Eagles have done with Wentz in there. Foles executed without fault, but I'd rather have Wentz. Great job by Doug Pederson who has been very underrated all year. Gotta hand it to NE for once again delivering a fun Super Bowl. Most of theirs have been worth watching. How many people didn't think Brady would complete that last pass? This all almost makes up for the Rams stupid finish where their special teams lose it for them, and then Jared Goff stinking up the Pro Bowl game, where they had 4 special teams players. The only thing missing from SB was Janet Jackson pulling down JT's pants.

 

[fast]

I'll have to concede to you the blown calls and its effect on the outcome as I'm certain you reviewed each and every play.

As far as the Gronk hit and suspension, I agree. One game was ridiculous... but it was apparently in line with other ridiculously short suspensions over awful hits. I'd been fine with a season/playoff suspension.

It wasn't "in line" with other hits, because there is no precedent for that level of literal criminal assault on the filed. I'm serious that he could and should have gone to jail for it. Pretty much every analyst and non-Pats fan agrees that Gronk's hit was on a whole different level of wrong than any other hit in memory, given that is was so completely outside of the context of an actual ongoing play, the guy was face down on the ground, and Gronk had full control of his own body and clearly aimed for the back of the guy's neck and head with his steel brace.

It was easily twice a bad as the next worst hit this year, so take Burfict's 3 game suspension for a far lesser hit during an actual play and double it. IOW, a 6 game suspension would have been in line with other punishments for far lesser hits. And no, Burfict's history doesn't matter because nothing in his history was nearly as bad.

Got a link to the hit?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I'll have to concede to you the blown calls and its effect on the outcome as I'm certain you reviewed each and every play.

As far as the Gronk hit and suspension, I agree. One game was ridiculous... but it was apparently in line with other ridiculously short suspensions over awful hits. I'd been fine with a season/playoff suspension.

It wasn't "in line" with other hits, because there is no precedent for that level of literal criminal assault on the filed. I'm serious that he could and should have gone to jail for it. Pretty much every analyst and non-Pats fan agrees that Gronk's hit was on a whole different level of wrong than any other hit in memory, given that is was so completely outside of the context of an actual ongoing play, the guy was face down on the ground, and Gronk had full control of his own body and clearly aimed for the back of the guy's neck and head with his steel brace.

It was easily twice a bad as the next worst hit this year, so take Burfict's 3 game suspension for a far lesser hit during an actual play and double it. IOW, a 6 game suspension would have been in line with other punishments for far lesser hits. And no, Burfict's history doesn't matter because nothing in his history was nearly as bad.

Got a link to the hit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjAN_wgmiI

He wasn't even ejected. He's wearing a cast/brace on the arm that he used to deliver the hit, and the other player suffered a concussion. A 1-game suspension is inexcusable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The one problem with the game last are the fucking rules. Patriots’ LaFell who was standing about upright is taken out of game with blatant helmet to helmet shot from blind side... but its cool. Eagles last touchdown had Michaels, Collinsworth, and everyone else uncertain whether it was a touchdown because no one understands the rule. Another Eagles touchdown involved a similar catch where the received has possession and two feet but bobbles to the ground, and again no one knows if its a catch.

These rules need to be fixed so that it isn’t a guessing game as to the outcome of a play. Please don’t think I’m whining as both plays should have resulted in touchdowns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Opoponax]

What a bullshit game.

It seemed exciting and well played at the time, but at the end, it turns out God wanted the Eagles to win. Yeah, Brady's the GOAT and all; and the Pats of the past 15 years are one of the greatest, if not the greatest NFL team of all time, but to know that God had his foot on the scale for the Eagles really ruins the game for me.

And everyone knows it's true. I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't hear Belicheck or anyone else in the New England organization blaming God for the loss. They just acknowledged it by silence. I kept waiting for "I don't know what happened. I prayed and I prayed, but God just wasn't listening to me."

How are we supposed to enjoy sports at all when God favors one team so much over another?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The game was fixed. The team I wanted to win didn't, which means it is fixed! There was a holding call that wasn't called and catches that clearly weren't catches. The NFL hates me! And god made Brady fumble.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The game was fixed. The team I wanted to win didn't, which means it is fixed! There was a holding call that wasn't called and catches that clearly weren't catches. The NFL hates me! And god made Brady fumble.

Only the Browns have enough salary cap space to sign god, and there's no way he'd play for those pathetic losers.

 

[rousseau]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

 

[fast]

Got a link to the hit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjAN_wgmiI

He wasn't even ejected. He's wearing a cast/brace on the arm that he used to deliver the hit, and the other player suffered a concussion. A 1-game suspension is inexcusable.

Thank you. I saw what he did, but I missed the potential why. Do we have a few more seconds prior to that?

 

[TSwizzle]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz touchdown seemed to come in for special scrutiny, something to do with Ertz being a "runner". I didn't figure out what the rule in question was but it looked like a touchdown to me. I was going to research further and decided not to bother. The season is over, the rule will probably be different next season.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz touchdown seemed to come in for special scrutiny, something to do with Ertz being a "runner". I didn't figure out what the rule in question was but it looked like a touchdown to me. I was going to research further and decided not to bother. The season is over, the rule will probably be different next season.

If the receiver is in the process of catching and going to the ground, the ball is an incomplete pass, regardless passing the goal line first. If a runner passes the goal line, he can spontaneously combust, and it is still a touchdown. The question is, when does a receiver become a runner. The Greek Philosopher Refereeous wrote at great length about that. He noted that the receiver becomes a runner... when it seems like he does.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Got a link to the hit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjAN_wgmiI

He wasn't even ejected. He's wearing a cast/brace on the arm that he used to deliver the hit, and the other player suffered a concussion. A 1-game suspension is inexcusable.

Thank you. I saw what he did, but I missed the potential why. Do we have a few more seconds prior to that?

Gronkowski was upset with the manhandling he was a victim of during the game, and wasn't being called because Gronkowski is a giant. (anyone laugh at the holding call when the guy grabbed Gronk's shoulder pad? It was a vicious and very dangerous play. And when I say play, it was after the whistle and out of bounds. The NFL is completely bonked not to suspend someone for the season for such an egregious foul. But hey, two Patriot players were knocked out after, so... you know... whateves.

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The first one... was the more questionable one. The one with the dive past the goal line seemed less objectionable... at least as far as the ridiculous rules the NFL has on it. Both should have counted as scores I think.

 

[ronburgundy]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz one was definitely a catch because he had possession for 3 full upright steps before leaping to the goal line. As soon as he crossed the line and before ever hitting the ground it was a TD.

The Clement one was less clear, but I think they got it right. He had possession with two feet down, took a step, then got pushed and the ball moved as he went out of the back of the endzone. The "football move" notion makes no sense in the endzone, because there is no reason for the player to make a move in the endzone. So, apparently the replay refs decided that he already established possession and thus had a TD before he ever got pushed and before the ball moved.

 

[Elixir]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz one was definitely a catch because he had possession for 3 full upright steps before leaping to the goal line. As soon as he crossed the line and before ever hitting the ground it was a TD.

The Clement one was less clear, but I think they got it right. He had possession with two feet down, took a step, then got pushed and the ball moved as he went out of the back of the endzone. The "football move" notion makes no sense in the endzone, because there is no reason for the player to make a move in the endzone. So, apparently the replay refs decided that he already established possession and thus had a TD before he ever got pushed and before the ball moved.

Agree with all of that. The NFL will almost certainly be re-visiting these ridiculous rules ("football move", "all the way through the ground" etc.) before next season.

 

[blastula]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz touchdown seemed to come in for special scrutiny, something to do with Ertz being a "runner". I didn't figure out what the rule in question was but it looked like a touchdown to me. I was going to research further and decided not to bother. The season is over, the rule will probably be different next season.

The confusion was because of this play last year, which was ruled incomplete upon review.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z1j50lKVoM[/YOUTUBE]

He was not considered a runner. The Eagle receiver was more clearly a runner.

 

[blastula]

The first one... was the more questionable one. The one with the dive past the goal line seemed less objectionable... at least as far as the ridiculous rules the NFL has on it. Both should have counted as scores I think.

I think the first one was too close to overturn, nothing definitive enough.

 

[ronburgundy]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz touchdown seemed to come in for special scrutiny, something to do with Ertz being a "runner". I didn't figure out what the rule in question was but it looked like a touchdown to me. I was going to research further and decided not to bother. The season is over, the rule will probably be different next season.

The confusion was because of this play last year, which was ruled incomplete upon review.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z1j50lKVoM[/YOUTUBE]

He was not considered a runner. The Eagle receiver was more clearly a runner.

It will be interesting to see if they change the rule in a way that makes this a catch. If he had simply fell straight to the ground and lost possession when he hit, then I think most people would say that it isn't a catch. But making a "football move" of redirecting his momentum and lunging for the goal line could be treated as sufficient to establish possession before he hits the ground and loses it.
He only lost control because he made that move with the ball to break the plane. It wouldn't need to mean that a "football move" is required generally, just that it could be sufficient to establish possession if a person is going to the ground during a catch and loses it when they hit the ground.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Speaking to the two touchdown calls from a casual observer who doesn't know the language of the rules involved, they both looked fair to me.

The Eagles beat the New England defense all the way down the field, and are 99.85% toward scoring a touch-down, and you want to call the touchdowns back on a technicality? I mean if possession was obviously not there, wouldn't the refs have called it that way? To my eye they both looked like touchdowns, and I'd guess it looked the same way to the reviewers.

The Ertz one was definitely a catch because he had possession for 3 full upright steps before leaping to the goal line. As soon as he crossed the line and before ever hitting the ground it was a TD.

The Clement one was less clear, but I think they got it right. He had possession with two feet down, took a step, then got pushed and the ball moved as he went out of the back of the endzone. The "football move" notion makes no sense in the endzone, because there is no reason for the player to make a move in the endzone. So, apparently the replay refs decided that he already established possession and thus had a TD before he ever got pushed and before the ball moved.

Agree with all of that. The NFL will almost certainly be re-visiting these ridiculous rules ("football move", "all the way through the ground" etc.) before next season.

The commissioner has already said he wants the rules committee to throw the current rule out and start from scratch.

 

[ZiprHead]

How about this one for weird?

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/k8Pa48sBtbA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Terrell]

The confusion was because of this play last year, which was ruled incomplete upon review.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z1j50lKVoM[/YOUTUBE]

He was not considered a runner. The Eagle receiver was more clearly a runner.

It will be interesting to see if they change the rule in a way that makes this a catch. If he had simply fell straight to the ground and lost possession when he hit, then I think most people would say that it isn't a catch. But making a "football move" of redirecting his momentum and lunging for the goal line could be treated as sufficient to establish possession before he hits the ground and loses it.
He only lost control because he made that move with the ball to break the plane. It wouldn't need to mean that a "football move" is required generally, just that it could be sufficient to establish possession if a person is going to the ground during a catch and loses it when they hit the ground.

This isn't new. Happened to Dez Bryant in a playoff game against Green Bay a few years ago. It would have put the ball on about the Packers' 3 yard line, 1st & Goal with a little under 4 minutes remaining had the play stood. Probably a couple yards further away if Dez doesn't try to reach the ball out, and instead focuses on getting the ball into his body. Since the play was on 4th down, it cost them possession. Probably the safe thing for a receiver to do is the following. If you're off balance, in any way, as you catch the ball, get the ball in tight against your body first & foremost.

The rule originated because of a play in a playoff game between the Buccaneers & the Rams, where Bert Emanuel made a diving catch, and had full control of the ball, but the ball touched the ground when he landed. The Rams challenged the play and it was ruled incomplete. The NFL decided to allow the ball to touch the ground as long as the receiver was in full control of it when it touched, and did not lose control as a result of any part of his body hitting the ground. If you're on the sideline and falling out of bounds, any bobble of the ball the pass is incomplete, unless you gain control of it with 2 feet inbounds, or any other body part touching the ground inbounds, before any part of your body touches out of bounds.

Personally I don't have a problem with the rule; the receiver has to consider the situation he's in as he catches the ball and weigh the risks of trying for that extra yard. Sometimes it's the necessary thing to do, other times it's not worth the risk.

Bottom line: If in doubt, for any reason, secure the ball first. Worry about the yardage next, unless you desperately need those yards at that exact time.