Next UP: Sleepless about Seattle

[Mondio]

It´s ludicrous to think that Wilson throwing five interceptions had anything to do with Michael knowing the Seahawks playbook.

I'm not so sure. How else can you explain knowing exactly where to be for the "let the ball bounce off your helmet" play?

 

[PackerDNA]

I was waaaayy wrong in my prediction on this game. And I'm quite happy I was!

Same here.

 

[AmishMafia]

pretty simple actually did the ball stop moving autonomously after making contact with the receiver? as soon as that happens ... it is a catch. if it is subsequently dropped... that is a fumble. Yes, that can sometimes be difficult to determine in real time but the current rules are illogical and ridiculous. If the receiver catches the ball according to the above rule and attempts to change his grip on the ball... such as securing it against his body etc... and drops it .... fumble plain and simple. There is no what if you can throw at this that changes these simple facts... The difficulty lies in determining if and when the ball's autonomous motion has been controlled.... so what....

Did the ball stop moving? Were his hands moving? Was the ball stationary relative to the hands? Was it stationary to one hand and not the other? How about part of one hand? - those 3 fingers it wasnt moving even thogh rest of hand was bobbling. Any ball the bounces back towards the QB must theoretically stop going away from the qb and change direction. By your definition that is a reception and a fumble. Later in your post you mention "control". Would "grip" therefore become a part of your definition? How do you define that? The naked eye, a ball can bounce off a players hand and look like a drop. If you slow the video down, there is probably a moment, a micosecond, where the ball is in contact with his hands and it is not moving. Then you will need to add a time definition to your rule. Then it starts sounding boring and slow process to determine catches.

I think you would have more issues and problems with this definition.

 

[swhitset]

Did the ball stop moving? Were his hands moving? Was the ball stationary relative to the hands? Was it stationary to one hand and not the other? How about part of one hand? - those 3 fingers it wasnt moving even thogh rest of hand was bobbling. Any ball the bounces back towards the QB must theoretically stop going away from the qb and change direction. By your definition that is a reception and a fumble. Later in your post you mention "control". Would "grip" therefore become a part of your definition? How do you define that? The naked eye, a ball can bounce off a players hand and look like a drop. If you slow the video down, there is probably a moment, a micosecond, where the ball is in contact with his hands and it is not moving. Then you will need to add a time definition to your rule. Then it starts sounding boring and slow process to determine catches.

I think you would have more issues and problems with this definition.

I don't... nor do I care. At least it would be about determing whether a catch was made. The current requirements essentially add a time factor that have nothing to do with actually catching the ball. The current rules certainly don't fix all this subjectivity. Jordy's called non catch is a perfect example. Everybody seems to agree that the officials got it right because he lost the ball "while going to the ground". My problem with that is that is not wha happened. Jordy was not going to the ground... To me, he clearly caught the ball, landed quite stably on two feet, and only then was knocked to the ground by the defender when he then lost the ball. The process of Catching the ball and the ball's impetus was not a factor in the ball hitting the ground, but rather it was actually a defender forcing the ball and the player to the ground after a catch had been made.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Same here.

I always had 100% faith in our team. 100%

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I always had 100% faith in our team. 100%

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Poppa San]

I don't... nor do I care. At least it would be about determing whether a catch was made. The current requirements essentially add a time factor that have nothing to do with actually catching the ball. The current rules certainly don't fix all this subjectivity. Jordy's called non catch is a perfect example. Everybody seems to agree that the officials got it right because he lost the ball "while going to the ground". My problem with that is that is not wha happened. Jordy was not going to the ground... To me, he clearly caught the ball, landed quite stably on two feet, and only then was knocked to the ground by the defender when he then lost the ball. The process of Catching the ball and the ball's impetus was not a factor in the ball hitting the ground, but rather it was actually a defender forcing the ball and the player to the ground after a catch had been made.

Not only that but IIRC Jordy hung on after contact with the ground. Only after he was down did the defender pull the ball out of his hands. If it were a running play in the field, it would not have been a fumble.

 

[sschind]

Not only that but IIRC Jordy hung on after contact with the ground. Only after he was down did the defender pull the ball out of his hands. If it were a running play in the field, it would not have been a fumble.

The difference is that on a run the ball carrier has established possession. In the case of a pass possession has not been established simply by contacting the ground. The receiver must maintain control of the ball for possession to have occurred.

 

[Poppa San]

The difference is that on a run the ball carrier has established possession. In the case of a pass possession has not been established simply by contacting the ground. The receiver must maintain control of the ball for possession to have occurred.

Unfortunately whether it is a reception or not has become a judgement call. I'll leave it at that.

 

[swhitset]

The difference is that on a run the ball carrier has established possession. In the case of a pass possession has not been established simply by contacting the ground. The receiver must maintain control of the ball for possession to have occurred.

except that this,in my opinion is a bad, rule, or at least a bad implementation. Jordy was not going to the ground, and had already caught the ball. He only went to the ground because he was knocked down. Being knocked down had absolutely nothing to do with the catch other than the fact that it happened very quickly after the catch. This is not hard to see if you watch the replay. This is why I do not like the rule... it introduces the nonsense about maintaining possession after going to the ground. If he were to have caught the ball and just stood there not moving for several seconds with the ball motionless in his hands.... and then simply dropped the ball and never fell to the ground... chances are it would have been ruled a catch and fumble.... the rule is just stupid.

 

[sschind]

Unfortunately whether it is a reception or not has become a judgement call. I'll leave it at that.

In a lot of cases yes it has and I don't know how they can take the subjectivity out of it completely. Different people are always going to see it different ways. Its a lot different than a running play where possession is clearly established.

except that this,in my opinion is a bad, rule, or at least a bad implementation. Jordy was not going to the ground, and had already caught the ball. He only went to the ground because he was knocked down. Being knocked down had absolutely nothing to do with the catch other than the fact that it happened very quickly after the catch. This is not hard to see if you watch the replay. This is why I do not like the rule... it introduces the nonsense about maintaining possession after going to the ground. If he were to have caught the ball and just stood there not moving for several seconds with the ball motionless in his hands.... and then simply dropped the ball and never fell to the ground... chances are it would have been ruled a catch and fumble.... the rule is just stupid.

Can you provide a link to the replay. I only saw it the few times it was played on TV and personally I did not have a problem with it being ruled incomplete.

 

[swhitset]

In a lot of cases yes it has and I don't know how they can take the subjectivity out of it completely. Different people are always going to see it different ways. Its a lot different than a running play where possession is clearly established.




Can you provide a link to the replay. I only saw it the few times it was played on TV and personally I did not have a problem with it being ruled incomplete.

Nope unless you want the come watch it in my living room on my DVR lol.

 

[Mondio]

Nope unless you want the come watch it in my living room on my DVR lol.

Give us the address

 

[swhitset]

Give us the address

Lol, now that might make an interesting situation. I'll start with a City ....I'm in the Wausau area.

 

[Mondio]

that's not a city, that's an area

 

[swhitset]

that's not a city, that's an area

Lol ok Weston

 

[Mondio]

Lol ok Weston

I can find you there I'll look for the faint glow of the green and yellow coming from a computer screen that would signify a citzen of Weston pounding out messages on the Packerforum.com after dark

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I can find you there I'll look for the faint glow of the green and yellow coming from a computer screen that would signify a citzen of Weston pounding out messages on the Packerforum.com after dark

Let's hope that is all they are "pounding out" in front of the faint glow of their computer screens!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good to see Wright and Sherman have less in their Christmas Stockings this year after their cheap shots in the Packer game!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/12/16/wright-sherman-fined-heavily-for-repeat-offenses/