Seattle losing again-Thanks Macc!

[j4jets]

10 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

I understand the damned rule but it is a bullsh*t rule that needs to be changed. You break the plane its a TD. Everything after that is moot. At least thats the way it was and thats the way it should be.

Well, it is a TD, as long as you can complete the catch. How can you score a TD on an incomplete pass?

[HawkeyeJet]

So how did this thread about a pretty solid trade by Macc turn into a thread about that play from the Pats game that already has its own 4 page thread?

[Patriot Killa]

1 minute ago, HawkeyeJet said:

So how did this thread about a pretty solid trade by Macc turn into a thread about that play from the Pats game that already has its own 4 page thread?

Because we are obsessed with patriot losses/shoulda been losses.

[Patriot Killa]

20 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

I understand the damned rule but it is a bullsh*t rule that needs to be changed. You break the plane its a TD. Everything after that is moot. At least thats the way it was and thats the way it should be.

AYE BRUH...

 

Are you gonna apologize though? You hurt my feelings when you misunderstood my post and fired back at me like I stole your dog and sh*t on your lawn.

 

i just feel like you owe me one, bro. What? You don’t have no conscious? 

[CanadaSteve]

2 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

Disagree the Pittsburgh TE did not have control of the ball same call that went against the Jets weeks ago. 

You can disagree all you want, the opinion is wrong.

He goes down, crosses the goal line hits the ground and the ball moves, but NEVER touches the ground.  Its a touchdown.  At least, its a TD unless you are playing the Patriots.

 

[paulyjet]

3 hours ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Ball is NEVER shown touching the ground. Never. The call was wrong then and wrong today. INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE. its THEIR ******* rule, but they use it arbitrarily to **** over teams.

Ball sits on the ground, while the back of his left hand is on the ball. Clearly NOT possession.

[Jet_Engine1]

6 minutes ago, paulyjet said:

Ball sits on the ground, while the back of his left hand is on the ball. Clearly NOT possession.

NFL explains NFL decision. LOL. Watched the game live. Have seen screen grabs. Cant see any conclusive video evidence that the ball touched the turf. Did it? Maybe? Probably? Did anyone see conclusive proof? No.

 

Sorry. NFL has zero credibility with self regulation. 

[paulyjet]

1 hour ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

NFL explains NFL decision. LOL. Watched the game live. Have seen screen grabs. Cant see any conclusive video evidence that the ball touched the turf. Did it? Maybe? Probably? Did anyone see conclusive proof? No.

 

Sorry. NFL has zero credibility with self regulation. 

I see the ball move and land on the ground. I saw it live (on tv) as well... But I do understand your ire.

Merry Christmas.

[Villain The Foe]

4 hours ago, Jared said:

Here you can clearly see the football just before it hits the turf.  roughly 1/3 of the ball is in front of his right hand, 1/3 is covered by the hand, and 1/3 sticks out to the left behind his hand.  In the second frame we can see the ball is rolling toward the camera (laces have changed position) because the butt of the ball has hit the turf.  The position of the right hand not only hasn't changed, but you can in fact see some turf between the right index finger and the ball (because the ball is not secure in EITHER hand).

Outside of the fact that this continues to happen in favor of the Patriots, the fact should be that if he broke the plane before the movement of the ball then it should be a TD. 

This instant replay is at an all-time level of ridiculousness. If the ground cannot create a fumble then it should not be able to create an incomplete pass. What the hell does one expect to happen when you catch a football and then hit the ground? 

I've seen plenty of play's where a running back extends for the plane and a defender either hits the ball or when the back lands he fumbles the ball but the play is ruled a TD because he broke the plane before the fumble occurred. Now we have movement of the ball after the breaking of the plane and suddenly it's incomplete because you have to possess it all the way to the ground? The call is bullsh*t. If you have to possess the ball all the way to the ground then "breaking the plane before fumbling"  and we'll as "the ground cannot create a fumble" are both nonsense and obviously contradictive when the ground can create an incomplete pass after breaking the plane. 

This is why the NFL ratings are down, for stupid sh*t like this that seems to always go in favor of their protected patriots team

[bla bla bla]

22 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Outside of the fact that this continues to happen in favor of the Patriots, the fact should be that if he broke the plane before the movement of the ball then it should be a TD. 

This instant replay is at an all-time level of ridiculousness. If the ground cannot create a fumble then it should not be able to create an incomplete pass. What the hell does one expect to happen when you catch a football and then hit the ground? 

I've seen plenty of play's where a running back extends for the plane and a defender either hits the ball or when the back lands he fumbles the ball but the play is ruled a TD because he broke the plane before the fumble occurred. Now we have movement of the ball after the breaking of the plane and suddenly it's incomplete because you have to possess it all the way to the ground? The call is bullsh*t. If you have to possess the ball all the way to the ground then "breaking the plane before fumbling"  and we'll as "the ground cannot create a fumble" are both nonsense and obviously contradictive when the ground can create an incomplete pass after breaking the plane. 

This is why the NFL ratings are down, for stupid sh*t like this that seems to always go in favor of their protected patriots team

This is the rule, it's a bad rule. By definition this was not a catch therefore breaking the plane of the endzone means nothing. You must catch the ball or be a runner and have the ball cross the line, neither happened. If this entire play took place in the endzone it would not be a catch either because he didn't maintain possession through the ground.

[Panzer Division Marduk]

5 hours ago, jetsons said:

yikes

Considering the team's track history in second round picks, can't be that bad an idea...

[Villain The Foe]

6 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

This is the rule, it's a bad rule. By definition this was not a catch therefore breaking the plane of the endzone means nothing. You must catch the ball or be a runner and have the ball cross the line, neither happened. If this entire play took place in the endzone it would not be a catch either because he didn't maintain possession through the ground.

No one said that it wasn't a rule, that's beside the point. The problem is that there are rules that are in direct contradiction  with each other depending on the circumstance, such as the catch in the game. You could say...

#1. It's a catch because he caught the ball and broke the plane, in which the play is complete after the plane was broken. 

Or you can say...

#2. He did not maintain possession to the ground. 

 

The problem that I raise is that there are a number of play's of players breaking the plane and losing control of the ball afterwards and it be considered a TD. 

 

Now before someone says that he didn't make a football move, it also has to be mentioned that his knee was down while having possession of the ball while breaking the plane, which means that he was down "by rule" before his hands hit the turf and the ball moved.

 

It was a bullsh*t call by the refs and it's ruining the sport given over analysing. It was a TD just like the ASJ TD against the Pats earlier in the year which ref over analyzing also botched. 

 

[JetFaninMI]

11 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

If that play happened in the end zone, he'd still need to maintain possession to the ground. Only way that's a catch is if they consider him a runner or made a football move, neither of those things happened.

We agree we hate the rule but you are wrong about the ball crossing the line as ending the play without first completing the catch.

You're wrong that the catch wasn't completed. He had possession when crossing the plane of the goal then it shifted when he hit the ground. The rule is bullsh*t and needs to be changed. He made a football move when he extended and was a runner while making that move. Maybe according to that bullsh*t rule the call was correct but from a common sense football standpoint that was a touchdown. The rule needs to be re-written and or changed.

[JetFaninMI]

11 hours ago, j4jets said:

Well, it is a TD, as long as you can complete the catch. How can you score a TD on an incomplete pass?

It was ruled an incomplete pass. He has possession when he crossed the plane of the goal. The rule is bullsh*t and needs to be re-written or changed. We can keep going back and forth on this but that is a TD in my book and should have been points on the board.

[JetFaninMI]

10 hours ago, Patriot Killa said:

AYE BRUH...

 

Are you gonna apologize though? You hurt my feelings when you misunderstood my post and fired back at me like I stole your dog and sh*t on your lawn.

 

i just feel like you owe me one, bro. What? You don’t have no conscious? 

 Misunderstanding. Got caught up in the heat of the moment and all that. Just sick and tired of bullsh*t calls deciding games that should be decided on the field.

[Peteo]

13 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

He broke the plain.  Touchdown. 

If he were a running back I would agree but for a receiver the he must maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground and in this instance he did not.

[bla bla bla]

9 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

You're wrong that the catch wasn't completed. He had possession when crossing the plane of the goal then it shifted when he hit the ground. The rule is bullsh*t and needs to be changed. He made a football move when he extended and was a runner while making that move. Maybe according to that bullsh*t rule the call was correct but from a common sense football standpoint that was a touchdown. The rule needs to be re-written and or changed.

If you want to consider the lunge a football move then yes that would be a TD but I'm not sure that qualifies as enough movement. If a receiver takes one full stride and then gets popped and drops the ball that is usually considered incomplete.

24 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

No one said that it wasn't a rule, that's besides the point. The problem is that there are rules that are in direct contradiction  with each other depending on the circumstance, such as the catch in the game. You could say...

#1. It's a catch because he caught the ball and broke the plane before his hands hitting the ground

Or you can say...

#2. He did not maintain possession to the ground. 

#1 is not a rule for a catch, it is in reference to a runner not a receiver who has not established possession.

#2 needed to happen unless the player was deemed a runner, which he wasn't.

26 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

The problem that I raise is that there are a number of play's of players breaking the plane and losing control of the ball afterwards and it be considered a TD. 

Yes, those players were runners who were established, once a pass goes forward the player catching it needs to establish himself as a runner before breaking the plane means anything.

28 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Now before someone says that he didn't make a football move, it also has to be mentioned that his knee was down while having possession of the ball while breaking the plane, which means that he was down "by rule" before his hands hit the turf and the ball moved.

No, he needs to make a football move or maintain possession through the ground. Neither of those things happened so he never had possession which means breaking the plane doesn't matter. 

31 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

It was a bullsh*t call bg the refs and it's ruining the sport given over analysing. It was a TD just like the ASJ TD against the Pats earlier in the year which ref over analyzing botched. 

Similar sort of but ASJ was a runner who lost possession in the air and then crossed the goal line and went out of bounds seemingly having possession. The refs said he did not establish possession after bobbling it so technically it was still considered a fumble. My issue is I thought ASJ should have been out at the 1 since there was not clear evidence that he did not maintain possession after bringing the ball in to over turn the call on the field. Last nights game it was clear as day on replay that the ball moved as it hit the ground before he establish possession.

[jetspenguin]

wow talk about a hijacked thread.........but that trade was a good one. I didnt like the seachickens anyway so rooting for them to lose has given me just the slightest bit of pleasure in an otherwise irritating season. 

[ChuckkieB]

The Patriots get the the calls.  Why is this shocking to anyone at this point?  That's what sustained success does in any sport - it gives you the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS.  

[JetFaninMI]

8 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

If you want to consider the lunge a football move then yes that would be a TD but I'm not sure that qualifies as enough movement. If a receiver takes one full stride and then gets popped and drops the ball that is usually considered incomplete.

 

Yes that is usually what happens. That is moot because he crossed the plane of the goal. He secured the ball, turned and extended across the plane of the goal without being touched and the ball shifted when he hit the ground. He wasn't "popped" and he was on the ground after securing the catch. We could go on and on about this but its a bullsh*t rule that needs to be re-written plain and simple.

[bla bla bla]

Just now, JetFaninMI said:

Yes that is usually what happens. That is moot because he crossed the plane of the goal. He secured the ball, turned and extended across the plane of the goal without being touched and the ball shifted when he hit the ground. He wasn't "popped" and he was on the ground after securing the catch. We could go on and on about this but its a bullsh*t rule that needs to be re-written plain and simple.

Crossing the goal line does not equal a catch or possession nor does it end the play, it only ends the play if he is a runner. To be a runner you need to make a football move, since he did not the next step is to maintain possession through the ground. He did not do so that so crossing the goal line is a non-factor. He doesn't need to be popped, that was just to show that even a movement sure as an entire stride is not considered possession so I understand why a lunge is not considered a possession.

I can see an argument that the rule should be different: 2 feet in and the ball is not moving = A catch regardless if the ground causes the ball to move but then we are going to see a massive amount of fumbles since you no longer need to make a football move or maintain possession through the ground for it to be considered a catch.

unfortunately that's not the rule so the refs got the call correct.

 

[JetFaninMI]

1 minute ago, bla bla bla said:

Crossing the goal line does not equal a catch or possession nor does it end the play, it only ends the play if he is a runner. To be a runner you need to make a football move, since he did not the next step is to maintain possession through the ground. He did not do so that so crossing the goal line is a non-factor. He doesn't need to be popped, that was just to show that even a movement sure as an entire stride is not considered possession so I understand why a lunge is not considered a possession.

I can see an argument that the rule should be different: 2 feet in and the ball is not moving = A catch regardless if the ground causes the ball to move but then we are going to see a massive amount of fumbles since you no longer need to make a football move or maintain possession through the ground for it to be considered a catch.

unfortunately that's not the rule so the refs got the call correct.

 

He caught the ball, turned, and crossed the goal line. That is a football move, at least in my book. Your opinion is otherwise. Look we can argue this until the cows come home but it looks as though we agree to disagree here. I think it was a TD and you, based on your opinion think it was not. Fine. The rule needs to be changed.

[bla bla bla]

5 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

He caught the ball, turned, and crossed the goal line. That is a football move, at least in my book. Your opinion is otherwise. Look we can argue this until the cows come home but it looks as though we agree to disagree here. I think it was a TD and you, based on your opinion think it was not. Fine. The rule needs to be changed.

That's the thing though, it's not really my opinion, it's the rule. First you need to catch the ball meaning you need to either be considered a runner or, like last night when you are falling, maintain possession through the ground before it is considered a catch. Neither happened.

I can agree to disagree but your interpretation of the rule is not correct.

[#27TheDominator]

This is literally the worst part of that stupid rule.  They have something simple and easy to rule on and the **** it up with this nonsense.  His knee hit, he had control should = catch.  If a defender jarred the ball out of his hands before it hit the ground, is it a fumble?  Probably, so it should be a catch.  You could argue that he turned up field and launched himself toward the goal line - a football move.  I appreciate Jared's take above, but I don't think it is indisputable that the laces moved.  They don't appear to have moved in relation to his right hand.

To me, the officiating is ruining the game.  It should be less obtrusive, but they just keep digging in deeper and deeper.    

[JustInFudge]

This trade is the highlight of Mac's career.  Lets see if he can do something amazingly crazy and actually draft a good player with that pick. 

[UnitedWhofans]

13 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

HE HAD POSSESSION WHEN IT BROKE THE PLANE OF THE GOAL LINE. TD. THATS IT. END OF STORY. Everything else after that is bullsh*t.

Did he run it into the endzone or did he catch it in the endzone

[JetFaninMI]

1 hour ago, bla bla bla said:

That's the thing though, it's not really my opinion, it's the rule. First you need to catch the ball meaning you need to either be considered a runner or, like last night when you are falling, maintain possession through the ground before it is considered a catch. Neither happened.

I can agree to disagree but your interpretation of the rule is not correct.

Last time. You say he was not a runner. Thats your opinion. I say he was a runner and made a football move(your words) thats my opinion. We disagree on those points. I am not disputing the rule just saying its bullsh*t and needs to be changed. You keep quoting it. The fact that you do will not change my opinion. Capeesh?

[Villain The Foe]

2 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

If you want to consider the lunge a football move then yes that would be a TD but I'm not sure that qualifies as enough movement. If a receiver takes one full stride and then gets popped and drops the ball that is usually considered incomplete.

#1 is not a rule for a catch, it is in reference to a runner not a receiver who has not established possession.

#2 needed to happen unless the player was deemed a runner, which he wasn't.

Yes, those players were runners who were established, once a pass goes forward the player catching it needs to establish himself as a runner before breaking the plane means anything.

No, he needs to make a football move or maintain possession through the ground. Neither of those things happened so he never had possession which means breaking the plane doesn't matter. 

Similar sort of but ASJ was a runner who lost possession in the air and then crossed the goal line and went out of bounds seemingly having possession. The refs said he did not establish possession after bobbling it so technically it was still considered a fumble. My issue is I thought ASJ should have been out at the 1 since there was not clear evidence that he did not maintain possession after bringing the ball in to over turn the call on the field. Last nights game it was clear as day on replay that the ball moved as it hit the ground before he establish possession.

It's ridiculous to have this discussion when it's clear as day to see a man catch a football then make a clear attempt to extend for the goal line only for someone to say that they somehow did not have possession of the football to begin with. As I said, bullsh*t over-analyzing. 

It was a catch. Hopefully the NFL continues to lose viewers that know what a catch is and don't have to go through books in order to explain why something isn't what it obviously was.

 

Both James and Jenkins catch were catches. No need for me to continue debating against what is essentially damage control. The refs were wrong, period

 

 

[jeremy2020]

Can this thread title be changed to reflect that it's about the NE/Pit game?

[JoJoTownsell1]

40 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

Can this thread title be changed to reflect that it's about the NE/Pit game?

Aww, someone is upset that Macc made a great trade and is part of the SOJF trying to derail the thread...

[bla bla bla]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

It's ridiculous to have this discussion when it's clear as day to see a man catch a football then make a clear attempt to extend for the goal line only for someone to say that they somehow did not have possession of the football to begin with. As I said, bullsh*t over-analyzing. 

It was a catch. Hopefully the NFL continues to lose viewers that know what a catch is and don't have to go through books in order to explain why something isn't what it obviously was.

 

Both James and Jenkins catch were catches. No need for me to continue debating against what is essentially damage control. The refs were wrong, period

 

 

I agree it is a ridiculous discussion and I think that was a catch but because the rule is what it is they made the correct call. I have an issue with the rule not the decision.

[southparkcpa]

18 hours ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

What a brilliant trade Macc pulled off by getting rid of Sheldon, who's doing very little in Seattle, and getting kearse PLUS a second round pick that is looking better and better after each Seattle loss.

Im not sure what this has to do with us, we still suck BUT yes, Kearse was a good pick up and as much as MO sucks, I think Sheldon is as bad.

Yet we let Snacks walk THAT is so JETSY!

[UnitedWhofans]

4 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

Im not sure what this has to do with us, we still suck BUT yes, Kearse was a good pick up and as much as MO sucks, I think Sheldon is as bad.

Yet we let Snacks walk THAT is so JETSY!

Snacks sucks too at that money

[JoJoTownsell1]

1 hour ago, southparkcpa said:

Im not sure what this has to do with us, we still suck BUT yes, Kearse was a good pick up and as much as MO sucks, I think Sheldon is as bad.

Yet we let Snacks walk THAT is so JETSY!

Huh? What has nothing to do with us? This is a Jets forum and our GM traded for Seattle's second round pick. So a topic discussing said trade kind of belongs here. 

It's also kind of important to discuss the fact that a draft pick in the late second round is looking like it may be a middle of the 2nd round pick. 

Care to explain what you were talking about? Are we not supposed to discuss  our GM, Jets trades or future draft picks in this forum? Maybe you've been brainwashed into thinking this forum is only for SOJFs to whine about all things Jets. 

[Jetster]

7 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Huh? What has nothing to do with us? This is a Jets forum and our GM traded for Seattle's second round pick. So a topic discussing said trade kind of belongs here. 

It's also kind of important to discuss the fact that a draft pick in the late second round is looking like it may be a middle of the 2nd round pick. 

Care to explain what you were talking about? Are we not supposed to discuss  our GM, Jets trades or future draft picks in this forum? Maybe you've been brainwashed into thinking this forum is only for SOJFs to whine about all things Jets. 

Need Atlanta to win tonight & get a game up on the Seahawks for the last wildcard spot.