LABILLBACKER Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 While we're talking about Hughes, has anyone seen Alexander in the last month?
vincec Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 I still think that the system is fundamentally flawed in that it puts the officiating front and center as the most important aspect in deciding close games. It’s set up so that the refs re-review every important call: scoring plays, turnovers, plays inside 2 minutes, plus any other big play that a coach challenges. You typically have a big play, followed by a lengthy review killing all game momentum, and then frequently concluded by a controversial decision that is hard to understand. That’s not what fans want to see at the key moments of a game. No one pays to watch the refs stare into a camera and explain archane passages from the rule book.
SoCal Deek Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 On 1/2/2018 at 4:21 PM, Rochesterfan said: I totally disagree. The rule is pretty specific - if a loose ball is touched by a player out of bounds - the ball is out of bounds. There is no intent. You are making it much more complex than it needs to be. If he was out of bounds and touching the ball at all - it is out of bounds. It it would be the same issue if the defender touched it out of bounds. Additionally if a kickoff is in bounds, but the receiver reaches and touches it and he is out of bounds - the kick-off is considered out of bounds. The issue is not whether the rule is specific. I'll assume that it is. But, we send lawmakers to Washington not only to make new laws, but to amend existing ones when new circumstances arise. In this case, once again, I do not believe that the INTENT of the rule is being properly interpreted or applied. I do not believe the rule-writer intended the out of bounds stripe to be a life boat for a player to use as a means of negating a fumble that was clearly made when he was still in bounds.
Rochesterfan Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: The issue is not whether the rule is specific. I'll assume that it is. But, we send lawmakers to Washington not only to make new laws, but to amend existing ones when new circumstances arise. In this case, once again, I do not believe that the INTENT of the rule is being properly interpreted or applied. I do not believe the rule-writer intended the out of bounds stripe to be a life boat for a player to use as a means of negating a fumble that was clearly made when he was still in bounds. Ok - so using that logic how would you feel if the Bills fumble there and a Dolphin player clearly out of bounds recovers the fumble and is awarded the ball. Is that ok? That exact situation comes up several times throughout the year including early this season for the Bills where the review took forever to see if a ball fumbled near the sidelines was touched or recovered by a player out of bounds. I am not sure what you are looking for with intent - intent is what is causing the catch rule to be very difficult ( where exactly does possession occur and football moves). This is a black and white rule that we should be looking for more of. No matter the reason if a ball is loose and someone touching the out of bounds boundary touches the ball - it is dead. There is no interpretation or gray with it - therefore it can be interpreted the same each time - even if the guy was not trying to recover the ball - he just happened to touch it. The issue with the rule is typically it is not clear because with the fumble usually there is a mad scramble and a pile of bodies and to see exactly who is in bounds and who is out of bounds is the issue - the rule is not the problem it is the increase in camera angles and HD frame by frame film that changes the game and is making replay very difficult compared to 5 or 10 years ago. 1
SoCal Deek Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 Rochester. Im not referring to the intent of the PLAYER, as in the tuck rule. I'm talking about the intent of the RULE. Yes, if the player is touching out of bounds he cannot RECOVER a ball that he never had. Why? Because he isn't actually in the game if he's out of bounds. But, in this case the player left the ball on the field, so just as in the case above he should not be able to regain possession by merely contacting the ball while he's out of bounds! let me ask you this. If a running back is tip toeing down the sideline and a defender who is now standing out of bounds reaches out and swipes at the ball, hitting it with his fingertips, but NOT causing a fumble, is the play whistled dead because an out of bounds defender touched the ball? I don't think so. After Sunday I'm not so sure.
KW95 - JA17 Posted January 7, 2018 Posted January 7, 2018 On 1/2/2018 at 1:52 PM, KW95 said: New Years eve, he's having fun. Could it be that he will retire after this year and will be his last game? Who knows, but I thought he called a great game. It was him and I just saw that Orlando Brown died in 2011 at the age of 40. I thought Triplette had a good game. DUNKIRK DON GAVE ME THIS INSIDE INFO!
Recommended Posts