• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NFL Divisional Playoff Week - Father Time Slays Peyton's Rectum !

CDeacMan said:
Haha yeah this was cracking my brother and I up. Looked like he was just eating a cigar. I had to think someone on CBS was like "we're doing this piece on Pagano's dad, but Jesus WTF is he doing?"
Click to expand...

haha they said something along the lines of "he's got a stoogie in hand and is getting a good workout from it."
 
Pilchard said:
The continuation rule is dumb, but the way game played out made the call arguably irrelevant.

After the call, GB got the ball with 4:06 left on its own 33 and did not need or want to score. They simply wanted to run clock. Even so, Dallas could not stop them as GB moved the ball into FG range. The idea that had Dallas scored GB would not have been able to move the ball down field (just like they did on their previous 3 drives) to score to win the game makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I would just like to know why so many people think the continuation rule is dumb. I know the "football move" is a bit subjective, but you don't hear that called dumb very often. You have to have some way to show possession. If anything I think the continuation rule is more straightforward than the football move guideline. The same thing happens multiple times during the season when a player falls out of bounds or out of the back of the endzone. Sometimes all it takes is a shift of the ball in the arm to rule it incomplete. This ball bounced off the ground. For those who think the rule is dumb, what should it be replaced with? Maybe the ref could count 1-mississippee or something?
 
Pilchard said:
I generally agree with this, but this year, the Denver defense was good enough to win the Super Bowl, and the Broncos have plenty of weapons on offense. Despite a slew of 3 and outs; the Denver defense held the Colts to 24 points, and picked off Luck twice. The loss yesterday was on Manning. Obvious that Manning was completely unable to get the ball downfield, and it was not very cold. No excuses. The loss yesterday was on Manning.
Click to expand...

Agree that yesterday's Broncos loss was on Manning, and I agree it wasn't that cold. And last year's loss in the SB was on him and lousy performance by his OL. And the loss to Balmur 2 years ago was, imho, partially due to him not having zip on the ball in cold weather.

As for yesterday, it turns out now that he as a torn right quad. The question he needs to ask himself is how much that quad hurt his throwing motion. If he thinks most of the problem was due to the quad, I don't have a problem with him coming back next year for 1 more try. But if his arm is just done, I hope he's honest with himself that his arm just can't get it done any longer and he hangs up the cleats. Hanging on too long can tarnish your legacy a tad - just ask Favre.
 
It wasn't one of those catches (or catch opportunities if you prefer) in which the player comes down on just his hip, his thigh, elbow or backside. He landed with control of the ball in two hands, managed to cradle it as he was striding, planted for a third step and dove to the end zone. If you choose not to see it that way and apply the rule as it is written, that's fine. But the whole premise of possession is screwed up because of this "continuation" bullshit. No one complains when a guy manages to press a portion of the ball against his shoulder pad with one hand as he tip-toes the sideline and then runs out of bounds, even though his only "football move" was to simply catch it for a split second with two feet down.

You could make the argument that Dez controlled the ball (even if it's just for a half second) with two feet on the ground before he dove for the EZ. If you look at it that way, then the ground can't cause a fumble and it's Cowboys' ball at the 1/2 yard line.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
It wasn't one of those catches (or catch opportunities if you prefer) in which the player comes down on just his hip, his thigh, elbow or backside. He landed with control of the ball in two hands, managed to cradle it as he was striding, planted for a third step and dove to the end zone. If you choose not to see it that way and apply the rule as it is written, that's fine. But the whole premise of possession is screwed up because of this "continuation" bullshit. No one complains when a guy manages to press a portion of the ball against his shoulder pad with one hand as he tip-toes the sideline and then runs out of bounds, even though his only "football move" was to simply catch it for a split second with two feet down.

You could make the argument that Dez controlled the ball (even if it's just for a half second) with two feet on the ground before he dove for the EZ. If you look at it that way, then the ground can't cause a fumble and it's Cowboys' ball at the 1/2 yard line.
Click to expand...

The fact that it was ruled that way on the field and then overturned is what pisses me off. No chance that was conclusively not a catch.
 
The rule pretty perfectly applies to the play. Do you debate that he was "going to the ground" as a part of completing the catch? By now you've come off your "THE BALL DIDN'T TOUCH THE GROUND" nonsense. The ball obviously came loose after it touched the ground.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
It wasn't one of those catches (or catch opportunities if you prefer) in which the player comes down on just his hip, his thigh, elbow or backside. He landed with control of the ball in two hands, managed to cradle it as he was striding, planted for a third step and dove to the end zone. If you choose not to see it that way and apply the rule as it is written, that's fine. But the whole premise of possession is screwed up because of this "continuation" bullshit. No one complains when a guy manages to press a portion of the ball against his shoulder pad with one hand as he tip-toes the sideline and then runs out of bounds, even though his only "football move" was to simply catch it for a split second with two feet down.

You could make the argument that Dez controlled the ball (even if it's just for a half second) with two feet on the ground before he dove for the EZ. If you look at it that way, then the ground can't cause a fumble and it's Cowboys' ball at the 1/2 yard line.
Click to expand...

You don't have to make a football move if you don't drop it. In the scenario you mentioned going out of bounds, if the player controls the ball and never loses control (bobbles, shift against pads, etc.), then it's a catch. He possessed it and got two feet in. If he drops it immediately after getting two feet in then I imagine it would be incomplete. The football move is only used to determine if a receiver possesses the ball long enough before dropping it to be ruled a catch.

deacvision7 said:
The fact that it was ruled that way on the field and then overturned is what pisses me off. No chance that was conclusively not a catch.
Click to expand...

It was conclusively not a catch. Should have been ruled incomplete to begin with. Maybe your complaint is with replay? How do you feel about picking up a penalty flag?

dez2.0.gif


Definitely by rule not a catch. Not even controversial.
 
Last edited:
Me, too. I think it is pretty clear cut and easy to enforce. Don't drop the ball.
 
Lunging for the goal line isn't a football move?



And I said them picking up the flag was a pretty harsh thing to do after announcing the penalty and marking off the yardage.
 
The "football move" part is negated if he's going to the ground to complete the catch, right?
 
bmoneydeac said:
The "football move" part is negated if he's going to the ground to complete the catch, right?
Click to expand...

He took two steps to complete the catch and then lunged for the goal line. So that was two football moves. Neither of which counted apparently. I'd argue that if he made that catch, took two steps, and then had the ball knocked out of his hands that it would be ruled a fumble.

And not sure if you saw it, but I retracted my argument that the ball never hit the ground yesterday after somebody posted a still picture of it. I incorrectly thought his hand was under the ball before seeing that picture.
 
deacvision7 said:
He took two steps to complete the catch and then lunged for the goal line. So that was two football moves. Neither of which counted apparently. I'd argue that if he made that catch, took two steps, and then had the ball knocked out of his hands that it would be ruled a fumble.
Click to expand...

He was falling down to the ground throughout the entire process. If he wasn't, then why didn't he simply walk into the endzone, as the DB had already fallen down and wasn't going to tackle him?
 
Guys...the rule is not that hard to understand. By the rule it was clearly not a catch.
 
Again, Rodgers was 10 for 10 to the end of the game, and Dallas had not stopped GB stopped in any of the final 4 drives; including when GB as not trying to score (the last drive); so, even if the catch had not been reversed, and Dallas had scored to make it 27-26 (or 29-26 if Dallas had converted the two point conversions), Rodgers had 4 minutes left, and he would have led GB to the winning score anyway.
 
Pilchard said:
Again, Rodgers was 10 for 10 to the end of the game, and Dallas had not stopped GB stopped in any of the final 4 drives; including when GB as not trying to score (the last drive); so, even if the catch had not been reversed, and Dallas had scored to make it 27-26 (or 29-26 if Dallas had converted the two point conversions), Rodgers had 4 minutes left, and he would have led GB to the winning score anyway.
Click to expand...

perhaps. maybe even probably. but at least then there wouldn't be this feeling of being hosed (which im sure is how Lions fans felt a week ago today.)
 
Anybody know if that was the actual play call on 4th and 2 or an audible or a checkdown to the third receiver? Because that's not really the high percentage play I'd be looking for on fourth down with the season on the line.

I'll take my answer off the air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top