Jump to content

*** Thursday night Football ***


Beerfish
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

??  You mean the interception that clearly hit the ground while Samuel's hands were not under the ball?  

hands being under the ball is not a requirement of a catch. He had two hands on the ball and made a 'football move'. *IF* anything, the ground caused a fumble.. which he recovered. 

You can give them that one if you want and take the one where the offensive player grabbed the defender and the defender got flagged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Claymation said:

He was great last night, Mahomes looked ordinary.

“Ordinary” is a relative term.  Dudes here would be blowing our QB after a 24-35, 235, 2 TD/0 INT day in a victory.

Remember when Tyreek Hill’s departure and Kelce getting old we’re supposed to turn Mahomes into little more than a JAG? Fun times.  Now he’s just spreading the ball around to “ordinary” WRs and making them all look good.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

hands being under the ball is not a requirement of a catch. He had two hands on the ball and made a 'football move'. *IF* anything, the ground caused a fumble.. which he recovered. 

You can give them that one if you want and take the one where the offensive player grabbed the defender and the defender got flagged. 

 A player must secure the ball before it hits the ground.  The issue was whether Samuel maintained possession (hands control the ball) or whether the ball hit the ground and the ground assisted him.  When he hit the ground, the ball hits the ground as well and moves.  That's a trap, not a catch.  There's nothing resembling a "fumble" here at all.  

The "football move" applies only after the player catches the ball with both feet on the ground.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

 A player must secure the ball before it hits the ground.  The issue was whether Samuel maintained possession (hands control the ball) or whether the ball hit the ground and the ground assisted him.  When he hit the ground, the ball hits the ground as well and moves.  That's a trap, not a catch.  There's nothing resembling a "fumble" here at all.  

The "football move" applies only after the player catches the ball with both feet on the ground.  

The rulebook disagrees with you.. It says,

Control the ball, get two feet or another body part down, and make a "football move," 

It defines Football Move as "performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

The NFL also clarifies: "Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control."

If you want to disagree that he 'tucked the ball away' before it hit the ground so didn't make a football move, then knock yourself out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

The rulebook disagrees with you.. It says,

Control the ball, get two feet or another body part down, and make a "football move," 

It defines Football Move as "performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

The NFL also clarifies: "Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control."

If you want to disagree that he 'tucked the ball away' before it hit the ground so didn't make a football move, then knock yourself out. 

 

Here is the rule from the NFL rule book

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Notes:

Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.

If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds.

 

Samuel did not secure and maintain control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground.  He lost control of the ball and it hit the ground before he regained control.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Chiefs fan and I thought that replay should NOT have overturned the INT.  I can understand how some refs might try and interpret every frame of a replay and apply the rule literally and overturn that..... and they did, but they shouldn't have.

At some point officials should think about what the spirit of the rule is intended for....using super slow mo replay to determine if a player had or didn't have control of a ball that they initially caught, and still had control of for all intents and purposes, but not to the letter of the law...that's not really what the rule was made for was it?

It's kind of like offside in Soccer.  That rule exists so you don't have offensive players hanging out deep down the field or deep into the other teams zone.  That rule was NEVER intended to be called where some ref or replay determines if a guy is half an inch behind a defender at the time a ball is passed ahead/into the zone.  IT's stupid how that's interpreted.  And so is this.

 

Last thing.  Mahomes definetly threw some turnover worthy passes.  The Chargers didn't convert those to turnovers (the above notwithstanding) ...Herbert also threw some turnover worthy balls.  The Chiefs only converted ONE of those into a turnover, it was a major play in the game..  Point being...in most NFL games, the QB's have some turnover worthy throws.  "ALMOST INTS" is not a stat...and if you keep that as a stat, that's a losers mentality.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...