NFL 2017-18 Thread

ermghoti said:
It's OK that you have no idea what the rules are. I mean, given that the rules have been posted 3-4 times on this page alone, it's a bit odd, but it's still OK.
Click to expand...

Full control when the ball crossed the plane - touchdown. It doesn't matter that the ball came loose after contact with the ground at that point.
 
ermaghoti is 100% correct -- this really isn't about the rules (cue: Shannon Sharpe "why are we even talking about this?"). It's about people who simply want an outcome and don't give a crap about the rules.

Worse is when people are shown the info (thanks again, ermaghoti for posting the rules so those who don't know them can learn them) and then refuse to back down. Bcos Murica! No, that's not a catch in the NFL.

Smorg, you're just wrong. You are basically saying "screw the rules!" or else revealing that you are not willing to read them. Which, you know, isn't really good faith. So, why not go back, read them, learn something, and not be so stuck?
 
smorgdonkey said:
Full control when the ball crossed the plane - touchdown. It doesn't matter that the ball came loose after contact with the ground at that point.
Click to expand...

That's.

Not.

The.

Rule.

I posted an image of the relevant section. Go ahead, download it, annotate it to highlight how your interpretation applies, and repost it.
 
"I want this outcome. So I will insist that the rule is X, even though it is Y. And just to prove that I won't be reasonable, I will refuse to look at Y when it is put right in front of my face. And then I will claim that I don't care about the rules, and I will do just about anything, except admit that I am disappointed in the outcome, and am really off-base about the rules."

Cue: entire country's culture.
 
You guys are right. The rule is what you say it is.

I say his knee was down so that negates the contact of the ball to the ground and all of that.

I am not even arguing that.

I am saying that some of the rules are IDIOTIC. Just like how the NFL allowed the BALL (s), yeah the main piece of equipment in their game, to be out of their care & control and have people tamper with them and then ban people for doing it. Idiots.

Not Steelers fan.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know the rule.

No, his knee being down had nothing to do with it.

If you don't like the current reception rule, explain what you'd prefer, and how it wouldn't result in hundreds of additional fumbles throughout a season.
 
IMG_3217.JPG
 
It was plain to see that he had control of the ball. That sounds like a good reception rule to me. Once the ball broke the plane, a touchdown is scored and the play is dead. It is all logical.

Logic is too much for football apparently.
 
smorgdonkey said:
It was plain to see that he had control of the ball. That sounds like a good reception rule to me. Once the ball broke the plane, a touchdown is scored and the play is dead. It is all logical.

Logic is too much for football apparently.
Click to expand...

Your logic excludes that the definition of a touchdown requires possession, and James never possessed the ball.

Assume a similar play occurs at midfield under your rule. Receiver momentarily controls the ball while his knee touches the ground. Before he regains control, the ball comes out, which is now a fumble. That happens like six times a game. Add in the times when the ball is snatched from the air, two feet touch down, and a defender immediately dislodges the ball. Fumble, another 4-10 a game. What you are proposing would reshape the game to the point where it would return to the style of play seen in the 30s and 40s, where the pass play was a gimmick or desperation move.

Momentary control has never been the standard for a reception for this reason. This is why after the infamous Dez Bryant drop, after all the outrage and complaining that the rule should be changed, the NFL did in fact institute a change. They reworded it to make it more clear that the receiver is required to control the ball through contact with the ground; in other words, they doubled down. It is the letter and spirit of the rule.
 
Knee is irrelevant. He was not down by contact.

He did not control the ball to finalize the catch. Same is if he landed in the endzone and went out of bounds while bobbling the football. No possession, no catch.


Haters gonna hate.
 
the lions are terrible. just horrible. if you never have a rb go for 100 yards just play the lions and even your backup will be able to run wild.

golden tate is amazing and they never pass him the dang ball.

i feel so bad for barry sanders and megatron, such amazing athletes playing for such a garbage organization. sucks to be from michigan in terms of rooting for a nfl team, after 35 years im basically done.
 
"Momentary control has never been the standard for a reception"

Exactly. Not trying to be flame-y, but when I hear people say things "the rule is stupid," I wonder how much football they really understand. Once upon a time there were different rules ("two steps" and others ....) and all of them had a common theme: that you must sustain control for a certain amount to demonstrate possession of the ball.

Ermaghoti lays out the practical reason(s) for this above. From a more athletic perspective, having caught some passes a very, very long time ago, I can say I understand both sides. Once you 'know' you 'have the ball,' you feel like you caught it. That is the inner athlete - "I had it." But I also know that if I were Jesse James, I need to fucking hang on to the ball as I go down. That's the competitor. So if we look at the famous Dez Bryant play, at the Jesse James play, I say "look, you know you had it and lost it." That's athlete me.

Patriot fan me says "good thing the refs didn't cave in for once at Pittsburgh," and then also admits that the refs utterly fucked the Buffalo Bills on that call on Sunday.

Last but not least, wondering how it is that the sports world could be turned upside down by one (not eleven) football having 11 instead of 12 pounds of air pressure during a 45-3 horsewhipping, costing the Pats a first round pick and a million dollars, but when the PGH fans throw beer cans at said 'offender,' and there are photos all over the internet of their fans throwing things at opposing players, somehow doing nothing about it -- the same week another franchise takes quick and solid action - is OK.
 
So if dude catches the ball and Gronk catches him before he touches the ground and runs 20 yards to put the dude out of bounds then it isn't a completion.

All I am saying is that the rule is ridiculous. Control of the ball should denote possession. If the ball would have flung from his hands 1/4 of a second after he first touched it then I would see it as incomplete. I say logic should be applied and it isn't... instead the illogical NFL rules apply. To me, logic says that he could not do what he did without possession...the LOGICAL definition of possession not the stupid NFL definition of it.

You can say that you disagree and that is fine - you are disagreeing with logic. That's ok though because you are towing the illogical NFL line which makes the rules. Just like giving people the perfect opportunity to mess with the ball(s). That's ok too but it is also illogical.
 
Let me ask you a person but well meaning question: why are you repeatedly using non-sequiturs? It really seems like you're getting caught with a hand in the cookie jar, then insisting that your older sister snuck out past curfew three weeks ago.

There is a rule regarding carrying another player out of bounds. That's not what we're discussing.

If you would like to argue about the rules regarding possession, that's of interest. You say that "control of the ball should denote possession." On this we can all agree - you, me, the NFL Rules Committee, all fans.

The problem is that 'control of the ball' is - as with most of these phrases - a very subjective phrase. It needs definition. That's what the rules do.

I got an A+ in Philosophy 301 (Advanced Logic) from Howard DeLong, author of DeLong's Theorem, probably the last great logical theorem authored in math. To quote Professor DeLong, "you are a marvelous logician." The previous sentence being an appeal to authority (a fallacy, as I'm sure you know), and my energy being a limited resource, I will gently say: my logic's fine. Let's have an argument, not a fight.

By the way, James' drop was about .5-.7 of a second after it initially touched his hands. What's the magic in the half second?

I think that the rules as currently written are easily understood and reasonable. Just because a great many people choose to not learn them doesn't make them less so.
 
smorgdonkey said:
So if dude catches the ball and Gronk catches him before he touches the ground and runs 20 yards to put the dude out of bounds then it isn't a completion.
Click to expand...

If only somebody had posted the rule repeatedly in this thread, and you could read it, and then know why that would be a catch.

smorgdonkey said:
All I am saying is that the rule is ridiculous
Click to expand...

That's mostly because you habe no idea what the rule is, and what the consequences of changing it are.

smorgdonkey said:
Control of the ball should denote possession.
Click to expand...

It does. "Control" needs a definition. That definition is in the rule you aren't reading.

smorgdonkey said:
If the ball would have flung from his hands 1/4 of a second after he first touched it then I would see it as incomplete.
Click to expand...

Since that's exactly what occured, that the ball bounced out of his hands as it contacted the ground before he completed the catch, I am more confused than ever what your complaint is here. Do you want to institute a timer to be referred to on all pass plays?

smorgdonkey said:
I say logic should be applied and it isn't... instead the illogical NFL rules apply. To me, logic says that he could not do what he did without possession...
Click to expand...

What he did was put his hands on the ball, and drop it when it hit the ground as he fell.

smorgdonkey said:
LOGICAL definition of possession not the stupid NFL definition of it. You can say that you disagree and that is fine - you are disagreeing with logic. That's ok though because you are towing the illogical NFL line which makes the rules.
Click to expand...

I said in maybe my first post in this thread that there is no logical definition of a catch, it's a construct, within the context of a game. The rules are the only thing that matter, with a secondary conern being whatever has traditionally been the manner in which the game were played. On that topic, for the first 100 years of the game, that would have been incomplete simply because the ball touched the ground. Your continued insistence that there is an objective Platonic ideal of "catch" that exists outside the NFL rules and can be applied to this play undermines your claims that you're applying logic.

smorgdonkey said:
Just like giving people the perfect opportunity to mess with the ball(s). That's ok too but it is also illogical.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you have no idea what the history of that rule is, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top