fatboyj711

Members
  • Content count

    372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About fatboyj711

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. What is the owner and his coaches thinking right now? The Pro Bowl is most stress-free environment there is for these guys and he still couldn't keep his composure.
  2. He embarrassed himself and his team with that performance.
  3. 6 playoff games in his 1st 3 years in the league on that subpar team. That's more than enough reasons to get a pass or several passes. That division has been a mess since Luck came into the league so that helps Indy get to the playoffs ... including Indy who went 2-16 in 2011 prior to Luck's arrival and 11-5 his rookie season with essentially the same team. Also, how does your argument explain Indy getting to the divisional round the last 2 seasons? Bottomline, Luck's poor play in the playoffs is understandable considering the burden on his shoulders. He gets a pass.
  4. 6 playoff games in his 1st 3 years in the league on that subpar team. That's more than enough reasons to get a pass or several passes.
  5. Is anyone really implying that the Packers should fire McCarthy after the NFC Champ game? If so, that's a bit extreme. With that said, I think the team would be best served if he gave up play calling duties. To me it's clear that he's got too much on his plate which is effecting his ability to make optimal situational decisions during games. It almost seems as if he has a chokehold on his pre-game gameplan regardless of what's actually happening on the field.
  6. I agree. During his post game interview, he essentially threw Bostick under the bus which was disappointing.
  7. Added some thoughts in bold. McCarthy obviously didn't run the ball every play in the 2nd half, but I don't think anyone can honestly debate that he didn't get conservative with his playcalling. Straight from the horses mouth from a previous post: I don't believe this is the reason why GB ultimately lost considering the series of events that unfolded that led to the Hawks winning, but McCarthy clearly was playing not to lose in the 2nd half opposed to going for the kill.
  8. Nobody is praising the rule, but it is clear if the player is going down in his attempt to make the catch, he must maintain possession through the fall. They did not invoke the process clause in Cruz's catch because their judgment was it did not apply to that catch. The rule has many issues with it, but it is crystal clear that by that rule Dez did not make the catch. You can pretend the rule does not exist. You can find examples of borderline calls. It does not change that Dez's catch was not a catch by the letter of the rules. This is my take on the rule and play. It's the fact that others make it their mission to defend the rule with absolute statements is what I have an issue with. That and the fact that anyone who is interested in breaking down the rule and play are labeled emotional Dallas fan.
  9. The rule is actually incredibly clear. What has muddied it is the discussion the NFL is engaging in regarding it. Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That is 100% crystal clear. 100% clear because you say so. 100% crystal clear because those who are charged with interpreting the rules are not interpreting the rule consistently. Got it. Are people saying he wasn't going to the ground in the act of catching the pass? To me it's inarguable that he was, and on that point the rule is 100% crystal clear. I'm beginning to think the issue isn't with interpretations, but with some people's eyesight. There's a camp that believes you can make a football move while falling to the ground. The language of the rule is not "crystal clear" about this and leaves room for interpretation. Only a few minor updates would be needed to make the rule crystal clear. On the other front, the NFL is explaining the rule in a way that lets the football move language back into the equation. Similarly, they could easily say what you say above and bring the debate to a screeching halt, but they just aren't doing that. Why? Maybe they are plain dumb... Maybe they just aren't interpreting the rule like you are. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the gray area many of you are seeing. Is the player going to the ground or not? That's all we need to know. There's nothing in there about football moves or number or feet or knees down or if he's out of bounds or how many hands he has on the ball or how freakishly athletic Dez Bryant is, or anything else people are trying to include in the conversation. People are trying to apply their version of "common sense" to the rule instead of actually reading and understanding the rule. Pereira: He agrees with the result of the play, but his interpretation of the rule is not the same as yours. As I have mentioned already, I think the it's simple and clean to require all falling players to complete the process. The rule just need to be cleared up. Not sure why it's so hard to accept that the rule may not completely clear. This 17 page thread proves this.
  10. The rule is actually incredibly clear. What has muddied it is the discussion the NFL is engaging in regarding it. Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That is 100% crystal clear. 100% clear because you say so. 100% crystal clear because those who are charged with interpreting the rules are not interpreting the rule consistently. Got it. Are people saying he wasn't going to the ground in the act of catching the pass? To me it's inarguable that he was, and on that point the rule is 100% crystal clear. I'm beginning to think the issue isn't with interpretations, but with some people's eyesight. There's a camp that believes you can make a football move while falling to the ground. The language of the rule is not "crystal clear" about this and leaves room for interpretation. Only a few minor updates would be needed to make the rule crystal clear. On the other front, the NFL is explaining the rule in a way that lets the football move language back into the equation. Similarly, they could easily say what you say above and bring the debate to a screeching halt, but they just aren't doing that. Why? Maybe they are plain dumb... Maybe they just aren't interpreting the rule like you are. Please highlight the part in Item 1 that states while falling to the ground you can make a football move and not have to maintain possession. Question. What does Pereira mean below?
  11. The rule is actually incredibly clear. What has muddied it is the discussion the NFL is engaging in regarding it. Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That is 100% crystal clear. 100% clear because you say so. 100% crystal clear because those who are charged with interpreting the rules are not interpreting the rule consistently. Got it. Are people saying he wasn't going to the ground in the act of catching the pass? To me it's inarguable that he was, and on that point the rule is 100% crystal clear. I'm beginning to think the issue isn't with interpretations, but with some people's eyesight. There's a camp that believes you can make a football move while falling to the ground. The language of the rule is not "crystal clear" about this and leaves room for interpretation. Only a few minor updates would be needed to make the rule crystal clear. On the other front, the NFL is explaining the rule in a way that lets the football move language back into the equation. Similarly, they could easily say what you say above and bring the debate to a screeching halt, but they just aren't doing that. Why? Maybe they are plain dumb... Maybe they just aren't interpreting the rule like you are. Please highlight the part in Item 1 that states while falling to the ground you can make a football move and not have to maintain possession. Item 1 is only one component of the rule. The language of the rule does not say with a shadow of a doubt that (a), (b) and © are irrelevant once a player is going to the ground. There is room for interpretation. There's a reason why there are people, who are more than casual fans, are interpreting the rule differently. Not everyone is a moron. To simplify things, I do think the NFL needs to just come out and say that if you are falling to the ground, you must complete the process period (no if and or buts).
  12. The rule is actually incredibly clear. What has muddied it is the discussion the NFL is engaging in regarding it. Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That is 100% crystal clear. 100% clear because you say so. 100% crystal clear because those who are charged with interpreting the rules are not interpreting the rule consistently. Got it. Are people saying he wasn't going to the ground in the act of catching the pass? To me it's inarguable that he was, and on that point the rule is 100% crystal clear. I'm beginning to think the issue isn't with interpretations, but with some people's eyesight. There's a camp that believes you can make a football move while falling to the ground. The language of the rule is not "crystal clear" about this and leaves room for interpretation. Only a few minor updates would be needed to make the rule crystal clear. On the other front, the NFL is explaining the rule in a way that lets the football move language back into the equation. Similarly, they could easily say what you say above and bring the debate to a screeching halt, but they just aren't doing that. Why? Maybe they are plain dumb... Maybe they just aren't interpreting the rule like you are.
  13. The rule is actually incredibly clear. What has muddied it is the discussion the NFL is engaging in regarding it. Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That is 100% crystal clear. 100% clear because you say so. 100% crystal clear because those who are charged with interpreting the rules are not interpreting the rule consistently. Got it.
  14. Incorrect. You cant make a football move if you are falling to the ground. You can make a football move that makes you fall to the ground though which is the only reason they discuss it. They are trying to over clarify because people keep bringing it up. They are doing a terrible job of explaining it. So if a player catches the ball, turns around immediately and dives for the end zone and then the ball pops out when he hits the ground, TD. If a player catches the ball and his momentum has him falling the whole time and he lands in the end zone and the ball pops out when he hits the ground, no TD. Even if he changes hands 9 times, puts it behind his back, reaches it forward and then tucks it under his arm. If all of that takes place while falling to the ground, no TD. If a player falls to the ground and when he hits the ground in the end zone the ball pops up, but doesn't hit the ground, and then the player regains possession of it, and then another player slaps it out of his hands, TD. Been called consistently for many years. What's funny is if you look up times in the past when this has happened and find message board commentary about it, it is the same story every time. Tons of people bringing up random scenarios to try and justify it is a catch. The bolded statement may indeed be true, but the rule is not clear cut nor is the NFL explaining it that way. The NFL could be explaining the rule differently because they stupid as you inply, but the easier explanation is that they simply don't interpret the rule as you do. If they feel the same way as you do, the explanation would be easy to articulate even with all the football move questions presented by the media. Honest question... Is anyone really debating that Dez started his football move at the start of his fall? Unless I'm mistaken, I think almost everyone is referring to the "lunge" he may or may not have attempted with his last step. I think everyone accepts that he was bobbling the ball going into the fall.