Hawt NFL Deserves Its Own Thread - THIS ONE

[Valve1138]

lolz Obrian is having a press conference today to discuss "the state of his job"

The state?

Which state?

Because it won't be in Texas next year.

 

[Floptical]

How can you get fired from ownership?

The other owners force you. He knew that was going to be the end result so he did it himself.

 

[nukes]

So it's more like a corporate board and less like private ownership.

 

[Valve1138]

The tears of Steelers fans are delicious.

Right call for a shit rule.

 

[Duke]

You have to admit though, that rule is fucking stupid. If all a runner has to do is have possession and break the plane, requiring different from a receiver is bullshit.

 

[Valve1138]

You have to admit though, that rule is fucking stupid. If all a runner has to do is have possession and break the plane, requiring different from a receiver is bullshit.

Oh absolutely. It's ridiculous it hasn't been addressed properly.

 

[Floptical]

You have to admit though, that rule is fucking stupid. If all a runner has to do is have possession and break the plane, requiring different from a receiver is bullshit.

Lots of weird calls this weekend. Like the bs they did to Oakland with the index card.

 

[Duke]

Lots of weird calls this weekend. Like the bs they did to Oakland with the index card.

For real. WTH was that? I haven't seen it mentioned but I don't recall that method EVER being used before, and now it's a thing?

 

[fly]

You have to admit though, that rule is fucking stupid. If all a runner has to do is have possession and break the plane, requiring different from a receiver is bullshit.

But how do you fix it? So then do you get rid of the rule that says the receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch? Or make it different for the end zone?

 

[Duke]

But how do you fix it? So then do you get rid of the rule that says the receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch? Or make it different for the end zone?

A good question. I'm of the opinion that if the receiver is down while still in possession, say, both knees make contact in the field of play, before his hands impact the ground, the catch is valid. If the knees come down outside the endzone, but, while still untouched by an opposing player so still active, the receiver breaks the plane, he is treated like a running back is and the touchdown is valid.

If at any point the player is technically down, and then after that point the ball moves because of impact with the ground, the pass is complete.

The ball coming slightly loose upon impact with the ground after the player is down therefore ruling the catch incomplete doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[fly]

hmmm, or what if we flipped it and running backs have to maintain possession through being called down and/or the whistle? Makes those reach out 'past the plane' fumbles a live ball.

 

[fly]

A good question. I'm of the opinion that if the receiver is down while still in possession, say, both knees make contact in the field of play, before his hands impact the ground, the catch is valid. If the knees come down outside the endzone, but, while still untouched by an opposing player so still active, the receiver breaks the plane, he is treated like a running back is and the touchdown is valid.

If at any point the player is technically down, and then after that point the ball moves because of impact with the ground, the pass is complete.

The ball coming slightly loose upon impact with the ground after the player is down therefore ruling the catch incomplete doesn't make any sense to me.

Scenario for your scenario: Receiver reaches out, maintains possession, both knees go down, ball hits the ground and pops out - no defender has touched him. Incomplete or live ball?

 

[Valve1138]

Simple way to fix it -

It would not be considered a fumble by an untouched receiver while in the endzone if the ground causes it, and receiver has control while going to the ground. It would be a touchdown.

Then get rid of the stupid touchback rule and you’re in business.

 

[Duke]

Scenario for your scenario: Receiver reaches out, maintains possession, both knees go down, ball hits the ground and pops out - no defender has touched him. Incomplete or live ball?

I'm of the belief that the ground cannot be the cause of a fumble.

 

[Darth Handsome]

Officiating football is nigh impossible, lets all just face it

 

[fly]

Simple way to fix it -

It would not be considered a fumble by an untouched receiver while in the endzone if the ground causes it, and receiver has control while going to the ground. It would be a touchdown.

Then get rid of the stupid touchback rule and you’re in business.

Then what about the field of play? Is that different? In your scenario, hope so, because I'd think that an untouched receiver losing the ball when contacting the ground would be a fumble.

If so, I don't like that either. There shouldn't be special rules for the endzone.

 

[Strings]

Every time the Pats win an important game people want immediate rule changes.

 

[Duke]

Every time the Pats win an important game people want immediate rule changes.

This came up the week before as well with the Vikings/Panthers. It has nothing to do with the pats and has, in fact, been debated all season.

 

[Strings]

This came up the week before as well with the Vikings/Panthers. It has nothing to do with the pats and has, in fact, been debated all season.

Mm hmm

 

[Jehannum]

Every time the Pats win an important game people want immediate rule changes.

The actual rule change that should be made is "the Patriots should not be an NFL team because their fans are so fukn annoying".