• 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 Offseason Thread: 2018 NFL Draft

The Cowboys can beat their girlfriends but they can’t beat the Packers.
 
I still want to know the difference between the Cole Beasley recpetion on 3rd down and the Zeke Elliott run on 4th down. Ball was in possession at the same spot on the field both times and pulled back from that spot both times.... two different rulings.

So stupid. And this didn't impact the outcome of the game. But it is just so nonsensical and illogical.




Also, Aaron Rodgers is a bastard. I hate him. I respect him, but God dammit, I hate him.
 
I don't think Elliot's run should've been a first down.

He got the ball to the first down marker, but it isn't the endzone...he voluntarily pulled it back. Mark should be where he pulled it back to -- its different if you're driven back and forward progress was stopped. Unless someone can explain it differently to me, I think the call was wrong.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
I don't think Elliot's run should've been a first down.

He got the ball to the first down marker, but it isn't the endzone...he voluntarily pulled it back. Mark should be where he pulled it back to -- its different if you're driven back and forward progress was stopped. Unless someone can explain it differently to me, I think the call was wrong.
Click to expand...

You're probably correct, because if you run backwards you get marked back. Pulling it back is the same thing.
 
It's the same as if a player crosses the first down line with the ball and backtracks and gets tackled.
 
PhDeac said:
It's the same as if a player crosses the first down line with the ball and backtracks and gets tackled.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why Beasley was short. Elliott should've been marked short too unless they ruled the defense knocked him back (which they didn't - it was his own doing).
 
Right. It wasn't forward progress.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
I don't think Elliot's run should've been a first down.

He got the ball to the first down marker, but it isn't the endzone...he voluntarily pulled it back. Mark should be where he pulled it back to -- its different if you're driven back and forward progress was stopped. Unless someone can explain it differently to me, I think the call was wrong.
Click to expand...

Then why is the endzone any different? It is called a "touch"down, right? One rule between the goal lines should be the same rule at the goal lines.

Such a stupid rule.
 
PhDeac said:
It's the same as if a player crosses the first down line with the ball and backtracks and gets tackled.
Click to expand...

Eagles_Legendz said:
Right, which is why Beasley was short. Elliott should've been marked short too unless they ruled the defense knocked him back (which they didn't - it was his own doing).
Click to expand...

But both instances would have been ruled a touchdown if instead of the 19 yard line it was at the goal line, correct?
 
That is the way it is in most sports. Soccer and hockey are the easiest examples. Once they cross the goal line in those sports, it doesn't matter what happens next. Same deal for football. That has never given me a moment of pause.

Now the first down rulings on that last drive were a bit more confusing.

(I was replying to the 8:58 post)
 
The endzone is literally the end of the zone.

dv7, do you have a problem the ball breaking the plane as the rule for a goal in soccer?
 
isledeac said:
That is the way it is in most sports. Soccer and hockey are the easiest examples. Once they cross the goal line in those sports, it doesn't matter what happens next. Same deal for football. That has never given me a moment of pause.

Now the first down rulings on that last drive were a bit more confusing.

(I was replying to the 8:58 post)
Click to expand...

But football has a "line to gain" mark. Apparently that "line" has a different rule than the end zone line. I think that makes no logical sense.


PhDeac said:
The endzone is literally the end of the zone.

dv7, do you have a problem the ball breaking the plane as the rule for a goal in soccer?
Click to expand...

The ball can break the plane of the goal line 100 times out of 100 and it won't be a goal. The WHOLE ball has to cross the WHOLE line to be a goal.
 
So you think the whole football should have to break the plane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top