After the two botched calls in the Detroit game, it somehow seemed fitting for the Dez Bryant reception to be overturned. Karma indeed!

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
Koen

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Koen

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
When a player with an ineligble # ( 70 for an example ) wants to be eligble to catch a pass,he has to report to the officials and they have to announce it before the play.

Haha, so they need to tell the refs who's gonna catch the ball?

no the refs are to be told which players are eligible to catch passes.

What a strange rule.

Just to clarify things here,these scenarios are not common. Usually,there are no announcements. There is a system based on uniform numbers so that everyone involved can determine who is and who is not eligible to catch a pass.

Players with uniform numbers between 0 and 49 or between 80 and 89 are always eligible to catch a pass unless it is announced otherwise ...... as in the above case ..... EXTREMELY rare .

Players with uniform numbers between 50 and 79 or between 90 and 99 are not eligible to catch a pass unless they report as an eligible receiver ..... which is not that common but,teams do use this opposite move in short yardage to gain situations .... usually when they are near the goal line.

By rule,there has to be a certain # of players on the offense who are not eligible to catch a pass on each play. ..... about half of the offensive team's players on the field .... usually linemen. This all goes out the window if a pass is deflected into the air by the defense. If a deflection happens,then any player can catch that defelected pass.

Where does that line come in? Here is what the NFL rule reads and there is nothing about saying they have to report that they are not eligible:

ELIGIBLE RECEIVERS
Article 5 Eligible Receivers. The following players are eligible to catch a forward pass that is thrown from
behind the line of scrimmage.
(a) Defensive players.
(b) Offensive players who are on either end of the line, provided they either have the numbers of eligible
players (1-49 and 80-89) or have legally reported to play a position on the end of the line. See 5-1-2.
(c) Offensive players who are legally at least one yard behind the line at the snap, provided they either
have the numbers of eligible players (1-49 and 80-89) or have legally reported to play a position in the
backfield.
(d) All other offensive players after the ball has been touched by any defensive player or any eligible
offensive player.
INELIGIBLE RECEIVERS
Article 6 Ineligible Receivers. All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are
ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including:
(a) Players who are not on either end of their line or at least one yard behind it when the ball is snapped.
(b) Offensive players wearing numbers 50-79, unless they have reported a change in their eligibility status
to the Referee and have assumed a position on their line or in their backfield as required by Article 5;
(c) Players who fail to notify the Referee of being eligible when required;
(d) An eligible receiver who has been out of bounds prior to or during a pass, even if he has reestablished
himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands.

It must go back to the number of eligible receivers permitted. They can only have a certain # of eligible receivers. They can't put 11 players out there all with numbers between 1 - 49 ( or a combination of 1-49 plus 80 -89 ) without some reporting to do. I assume that to be the rule,anyway ... probably in a different article. If there is not a rule against it,I would be very surprised.

Quote
GasLightStreet
What is interesting about Seattle is they played a weak team last week, while Green Bay had a solid opponent. Which leads me to think that GB will play a hell of a game against Seattle and possibly beat Seattle.

It all depends on the shape of Rodgers, of course.

I'm probably sticking with NE but I keep thinking Indy is gonna beat 'em. Watching that game against Denver, even though Denver SUCKS, Indy's players were working a gazillion times harder. Denver's players just stood around expecting it to happen. Indy kept digging. They wanted it way more than Denver. That's why they'll beat NE.

Although Denver might do OK during the 2015 season you can count them out of the 2016 playoffs and done for the next few years. Even if he plays, Manning is done. They sucked last year and they sucked this year in the playoffs. What seemed like a great idea when Manning went to Denver fell apart when Elway wouldn't get him some weapons.

Hawks are fired up & totally focused. They are going to absolutely destroy the Packers! The entire city is in blue today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-17 10:51 by crholmstrom.

So Milwaukee rock radio has banned Seattle bands until the Packers lose. We're going to ban Bon Iver in revenge. Oh wait...

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet
What is interesting about Seattle is they played a weak team last week, while Green Bay had a solid opponent. Which leads me to think that GB will play a hell of a game against Seattle and possibly beat Seattle.

It all depends on the shape of Rodgers, of course.

I'm probably sticking with NE but I keep thinking Indy is gonna beat 'em. Watching that game against Denver, even though Denver SUCKS, Indy's players were working a gazillion times harder. Denver's players just stood around expecting it to happen. Indy kept digging. They wanted it way more than Denver. That's why they'll beat NE.

Although Denver might do OK during the 2015 season you can count them out of the 2016 playoffs and done for the next few years. Even if he plays, Manning is done. They sucked last year and they sucked this year in the playoffs. What seemed like a great idea when Manning went to Denver fell apart when Elway wouldn't get him some weapons.

Hawks are fired up & totally focused. They are going to absolutely destroy the Packers! The entire city is in blue today.

Green Bay is R-E-L-A-X-E-D and focused. I don't expect either team to "destroy" the other but I do expect a good game with not that much scoring, maybe 28-24. A lot of trash talk coming out of Seattle which I think is putting neutral NFL fans behind Green Bay so maybe Seattle will be blue on Monday too.

Quote
mighty stork

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet
What is interesting about Seattle is they played a weak team last week, while Green Bay had a solid opponent. Which leads me to think that GB will play a hell of a game against Seattle and possibly beat Seattle.

It all depends on the shape of Rodgers, of course.

I'm probably sticking with NE but I keep thinking Indy is gonna beat 'em. Watching that game against Denver, even though Denver SUCKS, Indy's players were working a gazillion times harder. Denver's players just stood around expecting it to happen. Indy kept digging. They wanted it way more than Denver. That's why they'll beat NE.

Although Denver might do OK during the 2015 season you can count them out of the 2016 playoffs and done for the next few years. Even if he plays, Manning is done. They sucked last year and they sucked this year in the playoffs. What seemed like a great idea when Manning went to Denver fell apart when Elway wouldn't get him some weapons.

Hawks are fired up & totally focused. They are going to absolutely destroy the Packers! The entire city is in blue today.

Green Bay is R-E-L-A-X-E-D and focused. I don't expect either team to "destroy" the other but I do expect a good game with not that much scoring, maybe 28-24. A lot of trash talk coming out of Seattle which I think is putting neutral NFL fans behind Green Bay so maybe Seattle will be blue on Monday too.

The trash talkin' is part of the fun as its civilized & not personal or derogatory, IMO. Keeps things interesting. I can take it as well as dish it out. At least you don't seem as hyper sensitive as the SF guys were last year! If Rogers were healthy I'd be more worried. That being said, I expect the first half to be close & then things to get serious in the second half. Has been the pattern. The Beast just wears teams down. If you can, check online about the shoes he is wearing tomorrow. He's a character! Cheers. PS: I thought the Bon Iver line was a good one!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-17 19:15 by crholmstrom.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
He lost possession after he caught it , got at least 2 feet ( and 1 hand ) down , AND made a " football move common to the game " by reaching it towards the goal line .

That would make it either a reception + a fumble OR a reception + down by contact 20 inches away from the end zone IF he had been given credit for the 3 requirements above .

The issue is that he was not given credit for the " football move common to the game " after the first 2 requirements had been met and a fraction of a second before the ball hit the ground .

Fitting for Dallas. Sure. They usually get the short end of the stick with officiating. The Detroit game being an exception even though Detroit got away with things ( facemask / illegal hands to the face ) as well.

there is the issue they are saying he only got 2 feet down because he was falling and thats not a football move

I pretty sure the two feet down part is undisputed. The football move was the stretch of his arms toward the goal line and was made during the fall. I'm pretty sure the process of completing the pass must be finished before any football moves are considered. The fact that he did both at the same time speaks well of his talent but his loss of control happened during the final process of falling and that's why they ruled as they did. If I understand it correctly.

peace

That's pretty close but,if the process of completing a pass is finished before any football move,no other football move needs to be considered to make it a completion since the process would have been (in your scenario) already completed.

The football move (after possession of the ball and 2 feet down) is what makes the process of a catch finished and completed in some instances.

An example of a completion with no football move would be a : a player catching the ball and falling down immediately on their back ... maintaining possession all of the way to the ground without the ball ever touching the ground.

A credited football move before the ball touches the ground takes the place of the alternate requirement to maintain possession all of the way to the ground.

The head of officiating stated that Dallas would have been awarded the catch IF the receiver had reached the ball out further OR with 2 hands on the ball instead of 1 hand on the ball. My problem with that is that there is no rule requiring a reach with 2 hands on the ball or a long reach with 1 hand on the ball. Also,there is no language in the rule book which states that a short reach with 1 hand on the ball is not good enough. In other words,as it stands right now,it is much too subjective and the definition of " a football move common to the game " needs to be more clearly defined.

It is especially frustrating when you consider that,actually,the player briefly brought the ball into his body BEFORE the reach. How did the ball get from the 5 yard line to the half yard line without the player possessing the ball???? He wasn't juggling the ball.


It's very difficult to look at this photograph without considering it to be a catch : * [img1.imagilive.com] *


Anyway,that's all that I have to say about it. Maybe the rule will be slightly modified at some point. Probably 12 years down the road like the " tuck rule " . The play-offs continue this weekend.

lynch has a bad back though

Quote
keefriffhard4life
lynch has a bad back though

Didn't seem to phase him too much against Arizona & their much hyped defense, amongst others.

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriffhard4life
lynch has a bad back though

Didn't seem to phase him too much against Arizona & their much hyped defense, amongst others.

He had 59 yards on 14 carries against a Carolina team that ranked in the middle of the pack against the run. He also had only 3 catches for 6 yards. Not exactly prime Marshawn Lynch so I think it's safe to say it's a factor.

Quote
mighty stork

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriffhard4life
lynch has a bad back though

Didn't seem to phase him too much against Arizona & their much hyped defense, amongst others.

He had 59 yards on 14 carries against a Carolina team that ranked in the middle of the pack against the run. He also had only 3 catches for 6 yards. Not exactly prime Marshawn Lynch so I think it's safe to say it's a factor.

His numbers for the year have been on par with career in Seattle though. I was there last week & he did bust 1 awesome run later in the game. They do rest him during the week. He has had back issues his whole career. Much like Russell Wilson, the Seattle offense is underrated. All they do is win. I hope the game is good tomorrow. I do believe Hawks had the largest margin of victory last week admittedly against the weakest opponent. What I'm waiting to see is if Rodgers throws at Sherman this game. Also, there was a good article in the Seattle Times today. I'm going to test how old you are here. Interview with Kenny Easley about Kam Chancellor. Turns out Kam dated his daughter in high school. Easley would've been in HOF if he hadn't got sick & he is very impressed with Kam. That guy was a steal in the 5th round. Finally, on ESPN.com there is a good article about the Hawk D. They talk to Mean Joe Greene & Mike Singletary. Mean Joe says the Hawks are the only team out there he really watches. Pretty high praise. I remember that guy in his prime. Singletary is impressed too & seemed to keep his pants on, haha. I wish I was going tomorrow but could only afford 1 playoff game. I will be at my friend's & she is going to fix brunch. An excellent alternative! GO HAWKS! Seattle 34 GB 17 PS: sorry I was scattered here. Dad is dying & I've arranged a big family thing today. Basically his brothers saying goodbye. Kinda heavy. I will be back later. It is a nice distraction talking football with you all. Thanks.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-17 21:47 by crholmstrom.

My prediction is Pats-Seahawks in the Super Bowl and that would be a helluva a game!

Recently I have been accurate in predicting not only outcomes but final scores as well. I have no clue who is going to win today. I think, think, and think. When in doubt take the underdog. MMM. Not really - Just enjoy the games and purchase some stocks in the energy sector as big oil will bounce back. $40 a barrel is an illusion that will be short lived.

Whoevever wins the GB- Hawks game will win the Superbowl.

Go HAWKS!!!!

Go Pats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Pack...27-10

Quote
leteyer
Go Pack...27-10

I cant agree or disagree. Will the "dogs" bark on this mysterious Sunday?

"Do you remember President Nixon? or the bills you had to pay, or even yesterday"?

Quote
leteyer
Go Pack...27-10

With you on the Go Pack but I think much closer game than that. 24-21

Trent Richardson is out for the Colts due to a family emergency. Puts more pressure on Andrew Luck to perform well today.

Quote
Chris Fountain
Recently I have been accurate in predicting not only outcomes but final scores as well. I have no clue who is going to win today. I think, think, and think. When in doubt take the underdog. MMM. Not really - Just enjoy the games and purchase some stocks in the energy sector as big oil will bounce back. $40 a barrel is an illusion that will be short lived.

Whoevever wins the GB- Hawks game will win the Superbowl.

Go HAWKS!!!!

Offense sells tickets. Defense wins championships.

And the Seahawks easily have the best defense of the four remaining teams. Hard to pick against them.

Quote
Stoner72

Quote
Chris Fountain
Recently I have been accurate in predicting not only outcomes but final scores as well. I have no clue who is going to win today. I think, think, and think. When in doubt take the underdog. MMM. Not really - Just enjoy the games and purchase some stocks in the energy sector as big oil will bounce back. $40 a barrel is an illusion that will be short lived.

Whoevever wins the GB- Hawks game will win the Superbowl.

Go HAWKS!!!!

Offense sells tickets. Defense wins championships.

And the Seahawks easily have the best defense of the four remaining teams. Hard to pick against them.

You are both wise. Haven't been online as the power went out! Could've been riots. Heading out to my friends place to get taken care of. GO HAWKS!

Poring rain in Seattle should have an effect on the game. Same might be happening in New England so expect some sloppy play today.

Quote
mighty stork
Poring rain in Seattle should have an effect on the game. Same might be happening in New England so expect some sloppy play today.

Rain favors Seattle-

To Crholdstorm:


I love ny sister!!!! God Bless the Seahawks!! Her words-


And, I need to find another job because the surgeon I'm working for is probably going to retire in June. I'm going to start looking tomorrow. Honestly, I would love to work at a veterinarian office.

Go Seahawks! Looks like it's raining in Seattle, as usual!
V

Finally the flag waving is over, let's play some ball!

Seahawks look like crap.

Quote
leteyer
Go Pack...27-10

Probably 26-14. That blindsided block call on the Packers after the interception looked like a full frontal assault to me.

Gotta love the Jimi Voodoo Child soundtrack used by Fox/NFL.

peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-19 01:27 by Naturalust.

Green Bay snatches defeat from the sure jaws of victory! I don't recall ever seeing a team just collapse like they did. 55 minutes of awesome football then a total meltdown. Settling for 2 field goals instead of TD's right off the bat came back to haunt them. Very puzzled when they intercepted with 5 minutes left and then instead of running it, they simply take a knee? The defense then looked so non chalant when the Seahawks got a TD, then the muffed onside kick.
Looks like the Hawks will be Superbowl champs again!

Well I can't say I'm not disappointed, but it was a good game and the Seahawks proved that they deserve to be in the Superbowl. The fake field goal was sure a sweet play.

The damn onside kick was the game changer.

peace

To CRHolstrom - Hawks had no business winning that game. Piss poor game management by Packers at the end I credit the comeback but it should never have come to it. Congrats they found a way to win which is what good teams do. I hope the Pats win and that could be one heck of a game. If the Colts win I will be shocked and dismayed but stranger things have happened. I think Hawks would kill Indy.