incognito_man Posted October 15, 2017 Author Share Posted October 15, 2017 42 minutes ago, TheEagle said: As a Packers fan, I don't understand what people are arguing about regarding him moving the ball back. It's irrelevant. He gets forward progress. My only issue was where they judged forward progress to be. They marked it past the 19 yard line. It didn't look he got past the 19 yard line with an overhead camera that was not directly over the ball. IThe camera was over the 20 yard line (that angle will make it appear the ball got further than it did). It's not irrelevant whatsoever. Ever see a RB run backwards and turn a 1 yd loss into an 8 yd loss? He doesn't get "forward progress" because he voluntarily ran backwards. Exactly like this case, Zeke voluntarily moved backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunch Pail Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 I think something similar which happened earlier in the same drive (I think?) was when Cole Beasley caught the ball with his arm extended and brought the ball back into his body which ended up being short of the 1st down because he brought it backwards on his own before he was contacted by a defender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 14 hours ago, incognito_man said: It's not irrelevant whatsoever. Ever see a RB run backwards and turn a 1 yd loss into an 8 yd loss? He doesn't get "forward progress" because he voluntarily ran backwards. Exactly like this case, Zeke voluntarily moved backward. ill ask for the 14th time. wheres the rule? its a stupid argument imo, but im more than willing to admit im wrong if theres a rule for it. cause the rule i posted from the nfl rulebook says nothing about bringing the ball back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 7 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: ill ask for the 14th time. wheres the rule? its a stupid argument imo, but im more than willing to admit im wrong if theres a rule for it. cause the rule i posted from the nfl rulebook says nothing about bringing the ball back. It also doesn't say anything about running backwards, but you know that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, mse326 said: It also doesn't say anything about running backwards, but you know that is true. no, i dont. the rule is forward progress. Once forward progress is stopped, thats the end of they play, by rule. to think you can have multiple defenders wrapping a guy up but because you can move your arm forward and back the play isnt dead is silly to me. its very, very clear that either the rule isnt in there or you cant find it. I posted a quote directly from the nfl rule book, why is this still a discussion? what makes sense to you and what you want to be true is all fine and dandy. But by nfl rule, him moving hos arm back in relation to forward progress is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: no, i dont. the rule is forward progress. Once forward progress is stopped, thats the end of they play, by rule. to think you can have multiple defenders wrapping a guy up but because you can move your arm forward and back the play isnt dead is silly to me. its very, very clear that either the rule isnt in there or you cant find it. I posted a quote directly from the nfl rule book, why is this still a discussion? what makes sense to you and what you want to be true is all fine and dandy. But by nfl rule, him moving hos arm back in relation to forward progress is irrelevant. they probably felt they didn't need to define it because everyone knows the definition. I'm pretty sure they don't define "ball" in the rule book either, but the rest of us know what that is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, incognito_man said: they probably felt they didn't need to define it because everyone knows the definition. I'm pretty sure they don't define "ball" in the rule book either, but the rest of us know what that is too. nope, sorry. not how that works, you dont get to invent new rules just cause you cant move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 9 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: nope, sorry. not how that works, you dont get to invent new rules just cause you cant move on. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, mse326 said: 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? you still havent answered me, because you cant admit theres no such rule. Give that theres no such rule, it amazes me youre strill arguing this. No, a player cant run backwards unrestrained and gain forward progress. thats not what happened though, he was restrained and theres a clear rule in place. If you cant show me a rule stating otherwise, you have no argument. So ill ask for the 15th timem where is the rule? the only answer should be you posting the rule or saying i cant find it, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramxel Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Refs always give forward progress, unless a guy deliberately dances around. We've all seen it many times, and if it isn't by the letter of the law, like OP inferred, it really is by the officiating crews on the fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 23 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: you still havent answered me, because you cant admit theres no such rule. Give that theres no such rule, it amazes me youre strill arguing this. No, a player cant run backwards unrestrained and gain forward progress. thats not what happened though, he was restrained and theres a clear rule in place. If you cant show me a rule stating otherwise, you have no argument. So ill ask for the 15th timem where is the rule? the only answer should be you posting the rule or saying i cant find it, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, mse326 said: 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. yea, thats not how rules work and it would be chaos in the nfl if it did. you dont get to make up additions just because thats how you feel it should work. that play checks every box for forward progress as the rule is written. thats all that matters, you have no argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 14 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: yea, thats not how rules work and it would be chaos in the nfl if it did. you dont get to make up additions just because thats how you feel it should work. that play checks every box for forward progress as the rule is written. thats all that matters, you have no argument. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, mse326 said: 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. except youre not. youre adding to the rule purely out of your opinion. if yoi are just applying the rule, for the 16th time i ask you to show me where it says that. and its not my defintion, its the one in the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/14/2017 at 11:53 AM, GSUeagles14 said: (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends; o On 10/14/2017 at 9:22 PM, GSUeagles14 said: did anyone ever tell you not to answer a question with a question? i mean, if yoire claiming forward progress wadnt stopped because he briught it back willingly, show me the rule. because from what ive seen in the rulebook that isnt the case. im more than willing to say im mistaken here. just show me where in the rule book it says what tou are saying, or even something close. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.