Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Starter

About mse326


  • NFL Team
    Houston Texans
  • MLB Team
    Phillies and Indians
  • College Team
    Villanova Basketball

Other Information

  • Location
  • Job
  • Hobbies
  1. The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

    I've looked at this over and over. My only question is did his kneed hit before he hit the pylon. If the answer is yes then it should have been a touchdown. If no then it was ultimately the correct call. I think his knee hit first (a change from my previous position, I admit that) but it is hard to tell. Which means it should have been upheld.
  2. Cycling Thread: Froome does the double

    1. That was expected. Don't think you could give it to anyone else. Maybe if Sagan had been able to stay in the TdF and win green, but there was no other option. 2. That was expected too I think. And what I just read the expectation is that Aru concentrates on Giro and Dan Martin is the teams leader for the Tour. Doumoulin and Porte are still Froome's biggest threats but that is one contender down. 3. The combination of a team trial early and the late ITT really seams like it's limiting the contenders to one of the three mentioned. The others don't have the time trial or team and will lose a lot of time there. From what I'm reading it looks like Froome's big time to go will be stage 10-12. That is where he can put some time on Doumoulin and require him to push a little more in the Pyrenees than he may want to make up some time going into the ITT. That will also tire him out though giving Froome a little better chance in the ITT or at least enough to not lose too much time. Don't know enough about route setups and decision making there to make any statement, but a lot of comments I'm seeing suggest they purposely set up a lot of the course to prevent Froome from winning (like the cobblestones and unpaved roads). Do you think there is any merit to that?
  3. The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

    Is it your contention that if a runner is running and the defender hits the ball and pops up that it isn't a fumble until it hits the ground? The ball doesn't have to hit the ground for a fumble, the player just needs to lose control. Pylon has always meant both. That is why if a player hits the pylon before the ground on a catch he is OOB.
  4. 4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

    So his forward progress wasn't stopped before extending. He extended. And though nothing changed regarding him being restrained NOW his forward progress is stopped? You keep saying there is no where in the rule book. It is right there. The rule requires he is "restrained SO THAT his forward progress ends". No restraint caused that reach to end. SO THAT is causal phrase. If restraint didn't cause it to end, which it didn't, then forward progress was not yet stopped.
  5. The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

    That wasn't your contention. Your contention was since they were reviewing a TD they can't then call it a fumble and touchback. Ball doesn't have to touch the ground to say he lost control. And I already said for me the problem is when he came down he hit the pylon before the ground. Pylon has always meant end zone and OOB. Therefore he hit out of bonds in the endzone before recovering it in bounds.
  6. 4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

    We are applying it. We are saying his forward progress didn't end when he stuck the ball out. He was just as restrained before putting it out as he was after. So if the restraining stopped his forward progress then he shouldn't get the reach. If you say the reach is valid because his forward progress hasn't been stopped yet, then it also wasn't stopped when he brings it back himself. No defender restrained him from keeping that progress. He was his own volition.
  7. Federal appeals court dismisses Ezekiel Elliott case.

    I graduated law school and passed the bar but don't currently work as a lawyer, though am still a member. I believe @jrry32 just graduated in the last year or 2 from law school. I think he works as a lawyer but am not sure.
  8. 4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

    Under your definition his forward progress was stopped before he reched forward. So why does he get that? I'm not adding to the rule at all. I'm applying it.
  9. The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

    Does anyone have an answer regarding why I think it was right? My first paragraph. Because it seems pretty clear to me that all of that happened.
  10. 4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

    You clearly don't get how rules are written. You don't write every specific scenerio. You write the general rule and apply it. The rule is if the defense stops forward progress you get it. If you voluntarilly retreat you don't. Now apply. The defense didn't stop him from keeping the ball out, he voluntarilly retracted it.
  11. 4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

    You still haven't answered us. Do you agree that forever if a player runs backwards VOLUNTRILLY he doesn't get the most forward progress he got?
  12. The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

    That's not how replay works. You review the whole play.
  13. The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

    I was more on board with the call until the explanation. Originally I thought it went like this. When he loses control of the ball it is a fumble. Just like any fumble it has to be recovered in bounds. He regains control while in the air but comming down hits the pylon before the ground. Hitting the pylon has always been considered out of bounds. So ultimately he didn't recover it in bounds. Since the pylon also indicates the endzone the ball went out inside the end zone so a touchback. That makes 100% sense to me and to me is the right call. Now he's putting in this coming loose a 2nd a time so not completeing the process and I don't see that. So I think maybe they got the right call for the wrong reason.
  14. 4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

    It also doesn't say anything about running backwards, but you know that is true.
  15. Federal appeals court dismisses Ezekiel Elliott case.

    Do you have a case that forces the producers to hire the actor/actress or retain them if already hired? Or do you just believe that is irreparable harm? I know some theories of consideration are moving away from the benefit-detriment theory, but that is still the oldest and and primary theory.