REFS BLOW CALL - RECEPTION AND TD DISALLOWED
-
Masters said:
Of course Simms also backed off it and agreed with the ref after the ruling. They just keep changing it so much, it's pretty crazy. At least on this rule it's called pretty consitantly. Just happened to be on the Holmes play he was in stride, rather than the catch on the sidelines, endzone, or a guy leaping and it happinging like more commonly seen.Just LOOK at the Replay ...if thats NOT A Catch... Geez...Common Sense says that's a Catch . Dumb NFL bs.... Amazing.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Just LOOK at the Replay ...if thats NOT A Catch... Geez...Common Sense says that's a Catch . Dumb NFL bs.... Amazing.As I have said in several posts, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule. At the same token, I am sure you wouldn't have wanted the incompletea pass to Washington on the first drive ruled a fumble (two feet down and control of the ball).
-
By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is
did the recovery occur before or after the endzone
-
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Just LOOK at the Replay ...if thats NOT A Catch... Geez...Common Sense says that's a Catch . Dumb NFL bs.... Amazing.As I have said in several posts, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule. At the same token, I am sure you wouldn't have wanted the incompletea pass to Washington on the first drive ruled a fumble (two feet down and control of the ball).
Masters said:
As I have said in several posts, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule. At the same token, I am sure you wouldn't have wanted the incompletea pass to Washington on the first drive ruled a fumble (two feet down and control of the ball).Well Being Holmes had a TD.... YES I would take my Chances. But Dude , bottom line is a Catch is a Catch !!!! Its just stupid !!
-
I don't agree with the rule but "incomplete" is the proper call based on the rule which states that the receiver must maintain possession even while hitting the ground if he went down AS A RESULT OF CONTACT. I'm as appalled by the poor officiating as anyone but that's the right call. They've been beating this like a dead horse all season. You get hit and go down...you have to maintain control throughout. That's the rule. It may suck like the "Tuck Rule" but as of right now...that's the rule.
-
So if the receiver catches the ball and drags the defender for twenty yards and then hits the ground it is incomplete because of contact??????????????/
OH YEAH
The refs blew the call big time ........they did not even know their own rules
two steps with possession means complete and that happened
-
By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is
did the recovery occur before or after the endzone
By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is
did the recovery occur before or after the endzone
*yawn*
Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.
-
Masters said:
As I have said in several posts, I don't agree with the rule, but it is the rule. At the same token, I am sure you wouldn't have wanted the incompletea pass to Washington on the first drive ruled a fumble (two feet down and control of the ball).Well Being Holmes had a TD.... YES I would take my Chances. But Dude , bottom line is a Catch is a Catch !!!! Its just stupid !!
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Well Being Holmes had a TD.... YES I would take my Chances. But Dude , bottom line is a Catch is a Catch !!!! Its just stupid !!Like I said, I don't agree with the rule and I personally think it should be a TD. But what I think or believe the rule should be doesn't matter. I don't write the NFL rules.
-
So if the receiver catches the ball and drags the defender for twenty yards and then hits the ground it is incomplete because of contact??????????????/
OH YEAH
The refs blew the call big time ........they did not even know their own rules
two steps with possession means complete and that happened
So if the receiver catches the ball and drags the defender for twenty yards and then hits the ground it is incomplete because of contact??????????????/
OH YEAH
The refs blew the call big time ........they did not even know their own rules
two steps with possession means complete and that happened
Jesus, the first part makes zero sense there chief.
Yes, two steps, but only two steps is all he had. He didn't have two feet down, then two steps. As I have said, it's the same play as when a guy jumps up, comes down with the ball and two feet in (on the sideline or in the endzone), goes to the ground and drops the ball. A player must control the ball all the way through the catch including hitting the ground.
-
I don't agree with the rule but "incomplete" is the proper call based on the rule which states that the receiver must maintain possession even while hitting the ground if he went down AS A RESULT OF CONTACT. I'm as appalled by the poor officiating as anyone but that's the right call. They've been beating this like a dead horse all season. You get hit and go down...you have to maintain control throughout. That's the rule. It may suck like the "Tuck Rule" but as of right now...that's the rule.
I don't agree with the rule but "incomplete" is the proper call based on the rule which states that the receiver must maintain possession even while hitting the ground if he went down AS A RESULT OF CONTACT. I'm as appalled by the poor officiating as anyone but that's the right call. They've been beating this like a dead horse all season. You get hit and go down...you have to maintain control throughout. That's the rule. It may suck like the "Tuck Rule" but as of right now...that's the rule.
Exactly and I agree with you 100%
-
By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is
did the recovery occur before or after the endzone
*yawn*
Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.
Masters said:
*yawn*Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.
I personally believe the Holmes incompletion call was correct. (But then again, I have been repeatedly been told I am the stupidest person on this board, so don't listen to me
) Masters, if we use you logic the nonholding calls the Ravens O-line got away with and the roughing the punter call would have also been correct becuase those calls aren't being talked about either. I get where you are coming from but just saying...
-
Masters said:
*yawn*Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.
I personally believe the Holmes incompletion call was correct. (But then again, I have been repeatedly been told I am the stupidest person on this board, so don't listen to me
) Masters, if we use you logic the nonholding calls the Ravens O-line got away with and the roughing the punter call would have also been correct becuase those calls aren't being talked about either. I get where you are coming from but just saying...
@yeahdaisafuturehofer... said:
I personally believe the Holmes incompletion call was correct. (But then again, I have been repeatedly been told I am the stupidest person on this board, so don't listen to me )
Masters, if we use you logic the nonholding calls the Ravens O-line got away with and the roughing the punter call would have also been correct becuase those calls aren't being talked about either. I get where you are coming from but just saying...
Holding is always a bad example. There is holding on every play in the NFL. The roughing isn't being talked about because it too is the correct call by the rules. But that's a fine example of a bad rule, at least the way it is writen and enforced in the NFL. Or the running into the kicker call in the Eagles/Cards game. That's all my point is. If that call on the Holmes play was incorrect, trust me, PTI, Around the Horn, Rome, and 1st and 10 would have all been talking about it.
I wish I had NFL Network because I'll be they end up with Mike Pereira on explaining the call.
-
By the same token you are wrong again. It was a completion to Holmes blown by the referees and again misread by you. But since you have no clue about simple math, how can one construe you understand that two steps after possession constructs a clear reception .......what follows is either down by contact with the ground or a fumble........a fumble was clearly the case and recovery....or was it down by contact..........that is the question........the bigger issue is
did the recovery occur before or after the endzone
*yawn*
Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.
Masters said:
*yawn*Funny, no news is even talking about the play today, because it was the right call, by the rules in the NFL. Notice you don't touch the play with Washington that would follow the same logic and should have been a fumble then.
well NO New about it because the Steelers WON. On Steeler Radio there is plenty of discussion. And I fully understand the "Rule thing" at this Point. Common sense needs to rule stuff like this. NFL Are you listening ????? (Yeah ...I KNOW)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login