Week 15 Game Day Thread

[pwny]

 

[Dodo]

After watching the HD replays on Youtube I'll admit that it's the right call per the rule. Even though he had two feet on the ground when he first touched the ball, the motion as a whole was a falling one. It's still a horrendous rule that needs to be updated. The only reason the ball moved on the ground was because he reached out to put it across the line after it was already (IMO) in his posession. There should be some way to write that common sense notion into it, but unfortunately it's not in the rule

[mission27]

Just now, Cypher said:

My issue arises with how a situation like this is handled so differently from elsewhere on the field. If this play occurs at the 40, it's likely caused a fumble. He secured the ball, turned and extended, which would be construed as a "football move", establishing completion of the catch. The play should have ended the moment the ball crossed the plane, as he had already established possession and performed a "football move".

I'm not sure it would be handled differently at the 50 yard line. 

Isn't the issue that that was not judged to be a football move because he was in the process of going to the ground when he caught the ball?  If he catches the ball on the 3 or 5 yard line while standing, turns, and then lunges its a clear TD.

[MookieMonstah]

People are actually arguing over that call? That was 10000% not a catch.

[Pats#1]

After watching the video I think it's obvious that the ball hit the ground. Whether or not it was clear enough to overturn, I mean sure I understand the argument because it's not showing it 100% clearly, and I admit I'd be making the same argument as well if the tables were turned,  but anyone who is going to say that James kept that ball spinning on two-three finger tips and didn't use the ground establish control is lying to themselves.

 

It's an awful rule, that's the only thing that's for sure in this situation. It didn't hurt me this time so I'm not pissed off about it, and I'm sure I would be if the tables were turned, but that ball hit the ground, it absolutely hit the ground. Even if you couldn't see it actually hit the ground, watching how the ball moves as he falls into the endzone, it's nonsense to say the ground didn't make contact with the ball.

[Pats#1]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

After watching the HD replays on Youtube I'll admit that it's the right call per the rule. Even though he had two feet on the ground when he first touched the ball, the motion as a whole was a falling one. It's still a horrendous rule that needs to be updated. The only reason the ball moved on the ground was because he reached out to put it across the line after it was already (IMO) in his posession. There should be some way to write that common sense notion into it, but unfortunately it's not in the rule

Why couldn't they just quantify reaching out as a football move and remove the falling to the ground part, then judging each one of these situations on a play by play basis.

 

Why do they need to falling to the ground addendum?

[Forge]

1 hour ago, iPwn said:

 

This is phenomenal. 

[Dodo]

16 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

Why couldn't they just quantify reaching out as a football move and remove the falling to the ground part, then judging each one of these situations on a play by play basis.

 

Why do they need to falling to the ground addendum?

Because they had to write the rule in a way that would make the Calvin Johnson call retroactively correct, rather than admitting a mistake

[lancerman]

5 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Because they had to write the rule in a way that would make the Calvin Johnson call retroactively correct, rather than admitting a mistake

It's actually more because if that happened in the middle of the field it prevents it from being a fumble and makes it an incompletion. If the rule was different and that happened at the 50 yard line, someone could literally smash into the receiver while the ball was dislodged and then his team could recover it. Realistically that's an easy incompletion anywhere but in the endzone. Like if in the middle of the field somebody made a catch while falling and lunged forward and the ball hit the ground, nobody is debating that it's an incompletion. People would be screaming "it hit the ground". 

The problem is because he lunged while crossing the plane, people want to say "well he crossed the plane with the ball in his hand so it's a touchdown at that point". But the contention becomes if it was in the middle of the field it would not be called a catch it would be called an incompletion, so we are awarding a TD for something we would not call a catch in the middle of the field? And if it's not a catch, how can it be a touchdown? And in a nutshell that's the problem. 

It's hard to justify it being an incompletion in one spot on the field but not another because one leads to points.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Cypher said:

My issue arises with how a situation like this is handled so differently from elsewhere on the field. If this play occurs at the 40, it's likely called a fumble. He secured the ball, turned and extended, which would be construed as a "football move", establishing completion of the catch. The play should have ended the moment the ball crossed the plane, as he had already established possession and performed a "football move".

See that's the problem in the field of play it wouldn't be called a fumble. If he did that in the field of play it would be ruled an incomplete pass because as he was in the process of catching it the ball touched the ground and thus the catch wasn't completed. Therefore, it would be an incompletion. Which is what happened here. 

Here's the issue once you start falling, you can't perform a football move. A guy who is not in control of his body (IE falling) cannot make a football move. A football move is when catch the ball and start making like a step forward or juke or do something that is effectively the act of a running ball carrier. Once he was falling he couldn't do that. He only had one obligation, not let the ball hit the ground. When he didn't do that, it became an incompletion, regardless of whether he crossed the goal line. Because anywhere else in the field it would not be ruled a catch. And if it can't be ruled a catch anywhere else in the field, you can't rule it a TD reception.

[JAF-N72EX]

It seems like alot of people are very confused by the difference between the process at which a player is considered a "receiver" and when a player is considered a "runner". 

And to further complicate things (unnecessarily) these same people are mixing up the rules associated with each title.

[MD4L]

Unbelievable if they call this.

[MD4L]

Double posts.

[MD4L]

Whoops.

[Dome]

2 hours ago, iPwn said:

 

The wheel route was open anyways lol. What are the packers doing? Lol