Ref's screwing us less

[Guiness]

I get a kick out of the taunting penalty, and was pretty pissed at Chillar when it happened - he's a vet, and shouldn't lose control like that.

Did anyone see it? Was it warranted? You generally only see that if a tackler stands over a guy he just tackles and does a little dance or something.

[Fritz]

Do you think a player would get a taunting penalty if he stood over another player, put his thumbs up against his ear holes, wiggled his fingers, and said "Nah-nah-nah-na-poo-poo"?

[mraynrand]

Do you think a player would get a taunting penalty if he stood over another player, put his thumbs up against his ear holes, wiggled his fingers, and said "Nah-nah-nah-na-poo-poo"?

I'd like to hear John Facenda narrate that.

[Guiness]

Ok, I finally got a copy of the game, and watched the Jennings catch.

No way that was not a catch.

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.

I agree with others here. I think from now on, when there's a pass thrown for a TD, the whole DL should turn around and take a run at the guy that just caught it. Ball pops out, no TD.

[Patler]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.

No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

[gbgary]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.

No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

yup...catch, two steps and nearly a third, ball batted out of his hands, and then tackled.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.

[pbmax]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.

No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

yup...catch, two steps and nearly a third, ball batted out of his hands, and then tackled.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.

Here it is: http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/vi...=488451#488451

Essentially, if Bedard had it right, the fact that he got hit and knocked down invoked the "control it to the ground" rule, whether he had possession prior to that wasn't discussed. Which leaves open the question of how many steps a WR could possibly take, get hit, lose control of the ball while hitting the ground, and fail to score.

The only logical explanation, for a WR going out of bounds, is that the hit occurred before the third step. Because for the out of bounds plays, the rule envisions a catch, two feet and falling/being pushed out and losing or keeping control while hitting the ground. Or alternatively, Patler could be right that they are justifying the call and that it should have been decided differently.

[sharpe1027]

Essentially, if Bedard had it right, the fact that he got hit and knocked down invoked the "control it to the ground" rule, whether he had possession prior to that wasn't discussed. Which leaves open the question of how many steps a WR could possibly take, get hit, lose control of the ball while hitting the ground, and fail to score.

The only logical explanation, for a WR going out of bounds, is that the hit occurred before the third step. Because for the out of bounds plays, the rule envisions a catch, two feet and falling/being pushed out and losing or keeping control while hitting the ground. Or alternatively, Patler could be right that they are justifying the call and that it should have been decided differently.

Why does it matter if the hit occurred before the third step? If Jennings had done a Lambeau leap and lost the ball to a fan in the process it would therefore be an incomplete pass? The hit would have still occurred before the third step, Jennings would have still went to the ground (in the stands) and lost the ball. Ridiculous.

None of the explanations has yet addressed the real issue.

[bobblehead]

Horseshit rule, the NFL is encouraging late bone jarring hits in the endzone with such an ill defined rule....sign them up for congress, maybe they can help with the health care bill.

[pbmax]

Essentially, if Bedard had it right, the fact that he got hit and knocked down invoked the "control it to the ground" rule, whether he had possession prior to that wasn't discussed. Which leaves open the question of how many steps a WR could possibly take, get hit, lose control of the ball while hitting the ground, and fail to score.

The only logical explanation, for a WR going out of bounds, is that the hit occurred before the third step. Because for the out of bounds plays, the rule envisions a catch, two feet and falling/being pushed out and losing or keeping control while hitting the ground. Or alternatively, Patler could be right that they are justifying the call and that it should have been decided differently.

Why does it matter if the hit occurred before the third step? If Jennings had done a Lambeau leap and lost the ball to a fan in the process it would therefore be an incomplete pass? The hit would have still occurred before the third step, Jennings would have still went to the ground (in the stands) and lost the ball. Ridiculous.

None of the explanations has yet addressed the real issue.

Correct, the league has not defined when possession occurs for a catch in the endzone except for telling us when it does not. The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.

So, and I am inferring, because its entirely possible that this rule actually doesn't apply in this case, at a minimum for this call to have been made, Jennings was acknowledged to have two feet down and to have caught the ball. If that is the case, then the open question is how many steps before the catch, possession and TD is complete regardless of hit or falling out of bounds? Essentially, when does the "act of catching the ball" end?

I am suggesting it is possible the league is saying its the third step with possession. Its just a guess off an inference of the rule. Nothing more. And the league has not come close to saying it. My guess is they will not, since its easier to define what is not a catch than what is a catch.

[sharpe1027]

Correct, the league has not defined when possession occurs for a catch in the endzone except for telling us when it does not. The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.

So, and I am inferring, because its entirely possible that this rule actually doesn't apply in this case, at a minimum for this call to have been made, Jennings was acknowledged to have two feet down and to have caught the ball. If that is the case, then the open question is how many steps before the catch, possession and TD is complete regardless of hit or falling out of bounds? Essentially, when does the "act of catching the ball" end?

I am suggesting it is possible the league is saying its the third step with possession. Its just a guess off an inference of the rule. Nothing more. And the league has not come close to saying it. My guess is they will not, since its easier to define what is not a catch than what is a catch.

Exactly, and I didn't mean to infer you meant anything different, so no problems there.

I think they will eventually need to clarify, and they may have already done so internally. If they do not clarify, there will continue to be cases that leave the announcers scratching their heads and us throwing something through the TV.

[sharpe1027]

The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.

Hypothetically speaking, had Jennings maintained his feet it would have been a touchdown even though everything else was identical up until AFTER the ball came out? Makes no sense that something (falling to the ground) that happens AFTER the fumble will change the ruling. Poor call, poor explanation and poor job putting together the rule and educating the officials and fans.

[ThunderDan]

The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.

Hypothetically speaking, had Jennings maintained his feet it would have been a touchdown even though everything else was identical up until AFTER the ball came out? Makes no sense that something (falling to the ground) that happens AFTER the fumble will change the ruling. Poor call, poor explanation and poor job putting together the rule and educating the officials and fans.

It's hard to stay up when being horsecollared from behind!

[Patler]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.

No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

yup...catch, two steps and nearly a third, ball batted out of his hands, and then tackled.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.

The following includes a quoted statement attributed to an NFL spokesman.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/79309772.html

[ThunderDan]

OK, after last week no touchdown, which sucked. I can't understand how 4 steps down with the ball isn't a catch and how Big Ben's fumble wasn't a fumble.

I guess I am going to have to read the NFL rules again this week to understand why I have no fucking clue what any call might or might not be.