Lunch Pail Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Do we know why Jordy wasn't out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quark3 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 hours ago, St Vince said: Other than goal line it goes by Forward progress is the rule, he was laying on top of guys so he wasn't ruled down. So it goes by where the ball is when your progress is stopped, the replay showed him still moving forward when he extended the ball for the first down. I get that, but .... even after achieving forward progress, a player is able to move backwards if he wants to, we see that quite a bit - backwards progress counts too, until a ballcarrier is tackled, brought legally down. When Elliot voluntarily pulled the ball back towards himself, he was still moving, he hadn't been tackled 'down' yet, so to me, he should have been marked back to where the ball was when he brought it back to his chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecatcher Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Just now, Lunch Pail said: Do we know why Jordy wasn't out there? A few posts up references a tweet from Demovsky that said he was being evaluated. For what is unclear. Some feel it was a ab/oblique issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quark3 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 13 hours ago, Pugger said: I'd like to know this too. Earlier in that drive when a Dallas WR (I can't remember who is was right now) grabbed a pass on 3rd down it looked like when he caught it it was at the 1st down marker but when he was finally tackled the ball was at least a yard short (we got screwed on that spot). Was Elliot able to stretch it out because he technically wasn't "down"? Yes, Elliot was able to stretch the ball forward with his arm because he wasn't technically down, that is, his knee or other body part that makes you 'down' hadn't hit the ground and the whistle hadn't blown. But what irks me is that the same was true when he then pulled the ball back towards his chest. Still wasn't technically down, ball was now back near the 20, but the replay gave him the 19 yard line (and the critical first down) anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecatcher Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Quark3 said: I get that, but .... even after achieving forward progress, a player is able to move backwards if he wants to, we see that quite a bit - backwards progress counts too, until a ballcarrier is tackled, brought legally down. When Elliot voluntarily pulled the ball back towards himself, he was still moving, he hadn't been tackled 'down' yet, so to me, he should have been marked back to where the ball was when he brought it back to his chest. I agree. When a runner is down they can't stretch the ball forward and get that spot. By all accounts, Elliott was stopped and stretched the ball out. If the Packers would have knocked the ball out of his hands while stretching it out, I can almost guarantee they would have ruled him down as forward progress was stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 On the sky replay Elliot was still moving forward when he stretched for the first down, progress wasn't stopped and since he was laying on top of bodies he wasn't ruled down. If any part of his body was down before the stretch would've been ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fattlipp Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Adams will be a rich man soon..... that catch may have screwed our cap 5/80m at least IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecatcher Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, St Vince said: On the sky replay Elliot was still moving forward when he stretched for the first down, progress wasn't stopped and since he was laying on top of bodies he wasn't ruled down. I will agree to disagree. He was pushed back and then was laying on top of the pile. + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 32 minutes ago, eyecatcher said: I agree. When a runner is down they can't stretch the ball forward and get that spot. By all accounts, Elliott was stopped and stretched the ball out. If the Packers would have knocked the ball out of his hands while stretching it out, I can almost guarantee they would have ruled him down as forward progress was stopped. I remember a game from several years ago against the Oilers (egad, I'm showing my age here again! ) when Earl Campbell placed the ball over the goal line after he was down but this was years before all scores were reviewed by the officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 47 minutes ago, St Vince said: On the sky replay Elliot was still moving forward when he stretched for the first down, progress wasn't stopped and since he was laying on top of bodies he wasn't ruled down. If any part of his body was down before the stretch would've been ballgame. This is irrelevant, though. He voluntarily moved the ball backward. Forwarded progress only applies when a defender causes the backward movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, eyecatcher said: A few posts up references a tweet from Demovsky that said he was being evaluated. For what is unclear. Some feel it was a ab/oblique issue. If I had to guess its a leg issue. He skyed to catch that Rodgers 2 pc pass and landed on one leg. He looked gimpy walking off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Spartacus said: Over 30 points is not average and its not like our offense was putting the defense in short fields like the first half of the Atlanta game. The lone positive play was a gift of a dropped ball from Dallas. Granted I do think certain parts of the defense played average to above average (D line and the linebackers quietly had a pretty decent game till they were gassed) but the defense as a whole was not average. Over 30 points ignores context. They stopped them on the first drive but had an absolutely awful call gift dallas the TD. Defense netted 20 points after their pick6, gave up 27. Dallas had been averaging 23.5. so about an exactly average performance against Dallas on their home field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: Over 30 points ignores context. They stopped them on the first drive but had an absolutely awful call gift dallas the TD. Defense netted 20 points after their pick6, gave up 27. Dallas had been averaging 23.5. so about an exactly average performance against Dallas on their home field. 30 points ignores context, but you're ignoring the context of all the other games that Dallas used to generate those 20ish ppg as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: 30 points ignores context, but you're ignoring the context of all the other games that Dallas used to generate those 20ish ppg as well. How do you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: How do you know that? because I know you haven't combed the play by play from the other 4 games for questionable calls or situations like turnovers that benefited the dallas offense and led to points which "context" would wipe out. You'd have to be insane to do that without actually posting about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.