Jump to content

MAROTH4MVP

Chiefs @ Lions

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

There can be movement if they are in bounds.  It is the boundary line that is the issue.

If Golladay's rear end landed in bounds, it would have been a catch.  Even if his knee hit in bounds after the ball stopped moving, but before another part of his body landed out of bounds it would have been a catch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

I'm sorry, but how is it really that difficult based on the current rules?  Whether in the field of play or not, possession isn't gained until it is controlled with 2 feet down (or other body parts).  In bounds, that means no matter when the player controls it, it is for sure a catch if the ball doesn't hit the ground.  The key is the control has to happen before that body part touches in bounds.  Because Golladay was bobbling the ball, he didn't have control until he hit the ground.  Since that was out of bounds, no catch.  If there was no bobble after he first got both feet down, it would have been a catch.

Controlled, two feet down. Touchdown on the field, everybody knows it, no controversy  

But the NFL wanted to “improve” the rule by raising the metaphysical question, “What makes a catch a ‘catch?’” and introducing the “process” of the catch. 

Now nobody knows what a catch is but every two-bit lawyer wants to say, “Ackshually, let me tell you about the process of the catch.”

Tell me, which would you rather be doing... reacting spontaneously to the game as it happens on the field, or pontificating about the metaphysics of a catch?

Maybe, on second thought, we have the officiating regime we deserve. But it still makes me want to puke.


 

D0324744-E854-486D-957D-E67380623563.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

So is a toss sweep/jet sweep considered a pass play or a running play under the NFL's interpretation of the rules these days? Because a toss sweep has historically been considered a running pay, even though the ball does leave the offense and go into the air. The reason I am asking such a purposefully convoluted and dumb question is because the NFL has created a convoluted and dumb rule and then goes out and interprets it poorly.

You know the answer, so why are you wasting the time with this post?

Honest question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason_R said:

No offense, but it makes absolutely no sense to say “that is not a catch, in my opinion.”

It was a catch. Clearly and incontrovertibly. 

The technical question the league has to answer is whether he was in bounds when he made the catch. 

The metaphysical question the league has opened up is, “When is a catch a ‘catch?’”

As soon as you need a metaphysics to undergird the rule book of your sports league, you have gone too far. 

And when you have to appeal from men to angels far off in the ether to ask the metaphysical question, you might as well slam your hand right in the car door. 

Fair enough.

I am of the opinion he secured the ball (i.e. finished the process of catching the ball) after he was out of bounds, invalidating the completion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

You know the answer, so why are you wasting the time with this post?

Honest question.

What is forward? Is a lateral every truly a lateral if the ball moves even one half an inch forward? Should the coaches be able to challenge lateral versus pass? Of course I am being sarcastic and purposefully ridiculous asking this but so is the NFL with their interpretation of what is and isn't a catch anymore.

I think that picture that Jason posted, along with other video evidence, shows it was a catch in every universe but the NFL's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretending to be oblivious in the attempt to make a point is not a good look.

Kenny made a **** of a play but didn't secure the ball until after he was out of bounds.  I frankly am surprised this is as controversial a comment as it seems to be.  The ball is clearly moving around between his hands / body as he is going out of bounds in the video.  A still picture tells me next to nothing as it pertains to the reason it was overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John_Brian_K said:

And all of that does not even get into the fact that a big play is not a big play anymore.  You have to wait for review, you have to wait to see if a flag was thrown...it is on 90% of plays.  It sucks the enjoyment right out of watching.

That is right on. The joy of a great play has been replaced by the act of holding your breath while the refs look at a play frame by frame to see if there's any way they can call it back.

The agony of defeat has been replaced by waiting on a dweeb to see if his eyesight is as good as a high speed camera.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

I remember I was in 8th grade when I first saw the Lions wear the throwbacks on MNF against either the Cowboys or 49ers, I just know they were the defending champs and we upset them.

Anyway next day at school we were all talking about how the Lions should always wear those jerseys and our teacher overheard us and said something like "Those jerseys had nothing to do with the win so why should they keep wearing them." Perhaps the dumbest thing a teacher has ever said.

Everyone knows the reason they won was because they were the same underwear as the week before,  unwashed. Washing them would take all the luck out of them. Silly gooses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Also there are possession establishment requirements that need to be met when you are going out of bounds as opposed to when you remain in bounds.

Correct. If he was bobbling it and landed in bounds with it in possession it would have been a catch. As Motown mentioned, you can't bobble the ball and regain possession when you land out of bounds. This is clearly not a catch by NFL rules, I don't understand the controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a place where you guys are getting the official rules on what qualifies as control as well as what is a bobble?  The rules changed last year and that’s the part that has me confused.    
 

I get that the rules are different in the field of play and out of bounds.     I get you can’t bobble the ball out of bounds but I also see that the ball can move and still not be loss of control.   IMHO, Kenny didn’t bobble the ball. At no point did the ball lose contact with his hands.  The ball was always stuck to his body and I think the ball would have to lose contact with the body and/or hand to be a bobble.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hongbit said:

Is there a place where you guys are getting the official rules on what qualifies as control as well as what is a bobble?  The rules changed last year and that’s the part that has me confused.    
 

I get that the rules are different in the field of play and out of bounds.     I get you can’t bobble the ball out of bounds but I also see that the ball can move and still not be loss of control.   IMHO, Kenny didn’t bobble the ball. At no point did the ball lose contact with his hands.  The ball was always stuck to his body and I think the ball would have to lose contact with the body and/or hand to be a bobble.  

I think if you took 100 neutral football fans, it would be 51-49 on whether it was a catch or not. It was that close. With that being said...I've seen over a dozen close plays like this ruled incomplete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hongbit said:

Is there a place where you guys are getting the official rules on what qualifies as control as well as what is a bobble?  The rules changed last year and that’s the part that has me confused.    
 

I get that the rules are different in the field of play and out of bounds.     I get you can’t bobble the ball out of bounds but I also see that the ball can move and still not be loss of control.   IMHO, Kenny didn’t bobble the ball. At no point did the ball lose contact with his hands.  The ball was always stuck to his body and I think the ball would have to lose contact with the body and/or hand to be a bobble.  

That ball can move as long as it the player has control.  When the ball slides to his hip at the end of the gif it's clearly out of his control.  If it hadn't slid there it would have most likely been a catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Pretending to be oblivious in the attempt to make a point is not a good look.

Kenny made a **** of a play but didn't secure the ball until after he was out of bounds.  I frankly am surprised this is as controversial a comment as it seems to be.  The ball is clearly moving around between his hands / body as he is going out of bounds in the video.  A still picture tells me next to nothing as it pertains to the reason it was overturned.

It's not controversial at all.  He didn't have possession of the ball until he was out of bounds.  I don't see why this is the hill Lions fans want to die on when there were many other more controversial decisions that went against them in that game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sagnam said:

That ball can move as long as it the player has control.  When the ball slides to his hip at the end of the gif it's clearly out of his control.  If it hadn't slid there it would have most likely been a catch.

I think he still has control even though the ball moves.  A hand is always on the ball and and it’s still pressed against his body when it’s sliding on his hip.  There’s never a time where the ball is free without a hand on it and pressing against his body.   Its always under control even through it moves.  If at anytime there wasn’t at least one hand on the ball or even if the ball moved off his body then I absolutely would see why it wasn’t a catch.   That doesn’t appear to happen.  
 

FWIW.  I think the KC play probably could be a TD too.   Hard to see if his left foot is dragging when he makes the initial catch.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sagnam said:

They are both TDs or neither are TDs

 

 

 

new-td.gif

no-golladay.gif

Two different plays completely, how does one correlate to the other?

Watkins had possession with one foot down then it was punched out before the second foot planted. The ball was moving in Golladay's hands and he didn't gain full control until he was out of bounds. I find it so odd that some of you think it was a catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYLion said:

Two different plays completely, how does one correlate to the other?

Watkins had possession with one foot down then it was punched out before the second foot planted. The ball was moving in Golladay's hands and he didn't gain full control until he was out of bounds. I find it so odd that some of you think it was a catch.

 

How do they NOT correlate?  Two feet down.  That's the argument in this thread.  If Golladay had possession then so did Watkins.

Watkins left foot is definitely down.  I also can't believe there is a question of whether Watkins left foot was down.  It was clear to me in the gif.  It's clear to me in this frame from the gif.

 

For the record, neither is a catch in my opnion.

new-td-frame.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

I think he still has control even though the ball moves.  A hand is always on the ball and and it’s still pressed against his body when it’s sliding on his hip.  There’s never a time where the ball is free without a hand on it and pressing against his body.   Its always under control even through it moves.  If at anytime there wasn’t at least one hand on the ball or even if the ball moved off his body then I absolutely would see why it wasn’t a catch.   That doesn’t appear to happen.  
 

FWIW.  I think the KC play probably could be a TD too.   Hard to see if his left foot is dragging when he makes the initial catch.   

Having a hand on the ball isn't the same thing as under control.  He didn't move the ball from his stomach to hip, the ball moved there on it's own from the impact of the ground.  That's the way they seem to enforce the rules.  This one doesn't even seem particularly close because of the movement.  Two or three years ago any of the ball movement in that clip would make it incomplete.  Now the ball can move as long as the hands go with the ball.

 

Imagine if you call that Watkins play a TD then you need to call the same thing at the 50 yard line a fumble.  Are you prepared for that too?  Or are there different rules for the endzone and the 50 yard line?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

I think he still has control even though the ball moves.  A hand is always on the ball and and it’s still pressed against his body when it’s sliding on his hip.  There’s never a time where the ball is free without a hand on it and pressing against his body.   Its always under control even through it moves.  If at anytime there wasn’t at least one hand on the ball or even if the ball moved off his body then I absolutely would see why it wasn’t a catch.   That doesn’t appear to happen.  

I think this is a reasonable take. The standard for 'control' applied to super slow motion reaches a point of unreasonableness. HB is correct that there was no point when KG was ever at risk of losing the ball - there was nothing that even resembled a 'bobble' which a more reasonable way to interpret lack of 'control. Granted that is not the way the NFL approaches the issue so the Lions don't have a strong case for this play in particular, but I think the current interpretation of the rule is an OCD one so I like the line of argument as it would apply to changing the way the rule is applied in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, it's time to eliminate the incomplete pass entirely.  The ball is always live from snap until out of bounds or until someone is down by contact.  Now there's no difference between a pass and a fumble.  To make sure we address the much maligned touchback rule when the offense fumbles out of the opponents endzone any forward pass out of the endzone is simply a TD.

 

Scoring is EXCITING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jason_R said:

No offense, but it makes absolutely no sense to say “that is not a catch, in my opinion.”

It was a catch. Clearly and incontrovertibly. 

The technical question the league has to answer is whether he was in bounds when he made the catch. 

The metaphysical question the league has opened up is, “When is a catch a ‘catch?’”

As soon as you need a metaphysics to undergird the rule book of your sports league, you have gone too far. 

And when you have to appeal from men to angels far off in the ether to ask the metaphysical question, you might as well slam your hand right in the car door. 

Nice

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jason_R said:

Controlled, two feet down. Touchdown on the field, everybody knows it, no controversy  

But the NFL wanted to “improve” the rule by raising the metaphysical question, “What makes a catch a ‘catch?’” and introducing the “process” of the catch. 

Now nobody knows what a catch is but every two-bit lawyer wants to say, “Ackshually, let me tell you about the process of the catch.”

Tell me, which would you rather be doing... reacting spontaneously to the game as it happens on the field, or pontificating about the metaphysics of a catch?

Maybe, on second thought, we have the officiating regime we deserve. But it still makes me want to puke.


 

D0324744-E854-486D-957D-E67380623563.png

That nails my thoughts on it.  In todays world, unfortunately, people want the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buddha said:

It's not controversial at all.  He didn't have possession of the ball until he was out of bounds.  I don't see why this is the hill Lions fans want to die on when there were many other more controversial decisions that went against them in that game. 

To me it is not about being a Lions fan and what cost us the game.  It is just about the rules, replay and how it is taking away enjoyment of the game for me.  I think others are thinking the same thing.

There were a couple other plays that were what I would call controversial in that game, but I am used to the refs STARTING to keep a keen eye on a certain type of play in a game where it happens to the Lions and screws them out of a win.  It is what it is.

Confounding really.  It is almost as if Martha and the NFL meet up and she says "yeah go ahead and make a controversial call in our games, to bring attention to a new rule...no big deal."

I ALMOST can see that being a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...