Beerball Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 it does not seem contradictory - as once either has established possession across the plane the play is dead. if the runner was trying to recover a fumble in the endzone youd be closer to apples to apples comparisons of "establishing possession" I don't enjoy arguments for arguments sake like you, but, I'll try this one final time. There is one spot on the football field where a fumble isn't a fumble. That is the goal line. I cross the plan, I possess the ball, but I drop it before my knee is down. It is still a TD, there is no loss of possession. I catch the ball, I take steps while possessing the ball and I cross the goal line. I then hit the ground and the ball comes out and it is not a TD. If you can't see the contradiction there I'm afraid I can't make it any more clear.
Taro T Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 I don't enjoy arguments for arguments sake like you, but, I'lll try this one final time. There is one spot on the football field where a fumble isn't a fumble. That is the goal line. I cross the plan, I possess the ball, but I drop it before my knee is down. It is still a TD, there is no loss of possession. I catch the ball, I take steps while possessing the ball and I cross the goal line. I then hit the ground and the ball comes out and it is not a TD. If you can't see the contradiction there I'm afraid I can't make it any more clear. An example of where the receiver had control of the ball while taking steps and then lost the ball after hitting the turf and not getting the TD isn't immediately coming to mind. Do you have an example? What you have described seems more analogous to a runner that was already bobbling a ball before crossing the goalline. The runner wouldn't be awarded the TD unless he recontrolled the ball after crossing the line. Once the ball is controlled in the endzone, the play is dead. On a catch the ball isn't controlled until the catch is complete. Running a few strides without bobbling it would complete the catch and establish control.
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 An example of where the receiver had control of the ball while taking steps and then lost the ball after hitting the turf and not getting the TD isn't immediately coming to mind. Do you have an example? What you have described seems more analogous to a runner that was already bobbling a ball before crossing the goalline. The runner wouldn't be awarded the TD unless he recontrolled the ball after crossing the line. Once the ball is controlled in the endzone, the play is dead. On a catch the ball isn't controlled until the catch is complete. Running a few strides without bobbling it would complete the catch and establish control.
BillsBytheBay Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Beerball: you're problem is with how they determine a catch. I feel everyone has done a fine job explaining how the "plane of the end zone" rule works, and in my opinion, it makes perfect sense. Edited January 6, 2014 by JaxBills
The Wiz Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The Wiz: though I agree a ten yd penalty for offensive holding sucks, I think the last thing this league needs is less penalty yards for the offensive side. It's hard enough to play defense in this league as is. Give them a loss of downs too then.
garbag3man Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 the worst rule by far.... can't block the punter.......but the punter can make tackles. CAN block the punter ....... CAN'T head hunt him, or blow him up.
fergie's ire Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The "ground cannot cause a fumble" rule does not apply if the ball carrier goes to the ground on his own w/out "giving himself up" via sliding and is not down by contact with a defensive player before losing control. Was absolutely a fumble by Dalton. Yes, the same thing happened to the Patriot's Ridley in our first game this season. Impact with the ground jarred the ball loose but, because he was not "down by contact" and had fallen over his own feet...It was a fumble. As for the Calvin Johnson play, although there are a couple of stumbling steps, he is not "taking steps" in the sense that he is under control. In other words, if a receiver goes up for a ball and "goes to ground" in the process of making the catch, he needs to maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground. If he is under control and "takes steps" of his own volition, even if it is just a couple of steps, and crosses the goal line, it is a touchdown.
Delete This Account Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 All NFL players are required to make themsevles available to the media at least once a week per rules instituted by the league. Lynch isn't the first player to be fined. Cardinals WR Larry Fitzgerald was fined $10,000 in 2008 for not complying with the NFL's media policy. And after being fined, he never missed another media session, and proved to be an all-around good talker. I can vouch for that, given the time he gave me by phone for a piece I was working on a few years back. This isn't just limited to the NFL. I know the NHL has a similar policy. The Maple Leafs were fined once during the playoffs for not following media policy. jw
Security Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 1. any part of the ball crosses goal line on offense it is a touchdown 2. ball can bounce into end zone on a punt and guy can leap and tap the ball back onto the field even though the whole ball has touched the plane. 3. on a safety, the whole ball must be in the end zone for it to be safety 4. Guy can have two feet in bounds on a catch, and then fall or get bumped and it is not a touchdown if he then drops it (kind of a football play) The end zone baffles me somewhat, there are some other things going on here too
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Beerball: you're problem is with how they determine a catch. I feel everyone has done a fine job explaining how the "plane of the end zone" rule works, and in my opinion, it makes perfect sense. right hes comparing a back losing control to the rules of a receiver gaining control. they are fundamentally contradictory because they are moving opposite directions. if comparing to gaining possession of a fumble for instance he would be on the right track for comparing two similar things that may have different governing principles. 1. any part of the ball crosses goal line on offense it is a touchdown 2. ball can bounce into end zone on a punt and guy can leap and tap the ball back onto the field even though the whole ball has touched the plane. 3. on a safety, the whole ball must be in the end zone for it to be safety 4. Guy can have two feet in bounds on a catch, and then fall or get bumped and it is not a touchdown if he then drops it (kind of a football play) The end zone baffles me somewhat, there are some other things going on here too 3 is easy - its the same concept as 1 - the front edge of the ball is the mark of forward progress. the ball gets in the endzone, its a td. if the ball gets out at all, its likewise not a safety.
Taro T Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ol2fuo5p5c Except that play isn't set up the way Beerball described it. He set the ball on the ground (intentionally, I'll grant you) at the end on the same motion that he'd caught the ball with. Though I might agree that he clearly intentionally 'dropped' the ball, he didn't take steps while already in possession of the ball. He got his feet on the ground in the process of making the catch. There didn't appear to be any steps after he'd caught the ball, the steps were made while the catch was being made. Which is a significant difference IMHO.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Except that play isn't set up the way Beerball described it. He set the ball on the ground (intentionally, I'll grant you) at the end on the same motion that he'd caught the ball with. Though I might agree that he clearly intentionally 'dropped' the ball, he didn't take steps while already in possession of the ball. He got his feet on the ground in the process of making the catch. There didn't appear to be any steps after he'd caught the ball, the steps were made while the catch was being made. Which is a significant difference IMHO. If he were on the sidelines and got both his feet down it would have been ruled a catch I think.
Taro T Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 If he were on the sidelines and got both his feet down it would have been ruled a catch I think. Quite possibly, as he likely wouldn't have been trying to put the ball down and begin his celebration asap.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Quite possibly, as he likely wouldn't have been trying to put the ball down and begin his celebration asap. Even if he did the exact same thing, IMO. They would have ruled that he had two hands on the ball, and possession, and two feet in bounds, which would have ended the play. On the sidelines you don't need to do a football move. It's another in an endless series of contradictory rules.
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Even if he did the exact same thing, IMO. They would have ruled that he had two hands on the ball, and possession, and two feet in bounds, which would have ended the play. On the sidelines you don't need to do a football move. It's another in an endless series of contradictory rules. on the sideline, you still have to control the ball going to the ground. Edited January 6, 2014 by NoSaint
Taro T Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Even if he did the exact same thing, IMO. They would have ruled that he had two hands on the ball, and possession, and two feet in bounds, which would have ended the play. On the sidelines you don't need to do a football move. It's another in an endless series of contradictory rules. I'd put it more at 50-50, as his hands never stopped moving before the ball was on the turf. Either way, whichever way they'd've called it on the field, I'd expect the ruling wouldn't be overturned.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 on the sideline, you still have to control the ball going to the ground. Well I think he did control the ball, he didn't make a football move. He had it in two hands and then switched it before he hit and held it in his one hand. In the endzone that should end the play.
oman128 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not for anything and I'm not a Marshawn Lynch friend or fan but if the guy doesn't wanna talk to reporters that's his god-given right. Fining a player for not talking, seems really inappropriate Mr Goodell.
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not for anything and I'm not a Marshawn Lynch friend or fan but if the guy doesn't wanna talk to reporters that's his god-given right. Fining a player for not talking, seems really inappropriate Mr Goodell. no ones forcing him to take a job with mandatory media availability. every league does it. heck, every form of entertainment does really.
T master Posted January 7, 2014 Author Posted January 7, 2014 Except that play isn't set up the way Beerball described it. He set the ball on the ground (intentionally, I'll grant you) at the end on the same motion that he'd caught the ball with. Though I might agree that he clearly intentionally 'dropped' the ball, he didn't take steps while already in possession of the ball. He got his feet on the ground in the process of making the catch. There didn't appear to be any steps after he'd caught the ball, the steps were made while the catch was being made. Which is a significant difference IMHO. All's i can say is that the call in the video is total B S !!
Recommended Posts