Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 NO THE RULES DO NOT SAY THAT..................... THE RULE SAYS THAT IN LIEU OF THE RECIVER MAKING CONTACT WITH HIS FEET< IF HIS ONLY CONTACT IS THE GROUND.................... THEN HE HAS TO HAVE POSESSION. IF HE WOULD HAVE RUN 3 STEPS INSTEAD OF 2, OR 10 STEPS................. WHAT WOULD THE CALL BE? TWO STEPS IN TEH NFL CONSTITUTES A RECEPTION. THEY BLEW THE CALL. "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball." If the ball comes loose on contact with the ground it is INC. If you watched a game more than once a year, you'd know this. Guys get get two feet in hit the ground and lose the ball on ground contact each week and it is INC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sez.EJ Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 NO THE RULES DO NOT SAY THAT..................... THE RULE SAYS THAT IN LIEU OF THE RECIVER MAKING CONTACT WITH HIS FEET< IF HIS ONLY CONTACT IS THE GROUND.................... THEN HE HAS TO HAVE POSESSION. IF HE WOULD HAVE RUN 3 STEPS INSTEAD OF 2, OR 10 STEPS................. WHAT WOULD THE CALL BE? TWO STEPS IN TEH NFL CONSTITUTES A RECEPTION. THEY BLEW THE CALL. Ghoulie: That's what I thought also.. he took 2steps and went down and the ground caused the ball to come out.. the real question should have been TD or ball on the 1/2 yard line. It did not effect the outcome fortunately.. However the steelers still and will always..... suck! Go Cards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ghoolie Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball." If the ball comes loose on contact with the ground it is INC. If you watched a game more than once a year, you'd know this. Guys get get two feet in hit the ground and lose the ball on ground contact each week and it is INC. They are already talking on ESPN radio, the refs blew the call. TWO feet on the ground and it is a posession. IF it comes out on the ground it is a dead ball. By your asshole interpretation a guy could catch a pass, run 55 yards, get tackled and then when the ball bounces off the ground have the pass called an interception. The pass was complete, the refs blew it and have already admitted so. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because the Steelers punked the Ravens and punched the shit out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ghoolie Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Ghoulie: That's what I thought also.. he took 2steps and went down and the ground caused the ball to come out.. the real question should have been TD or ball on the 1/2 yard line. It did not effect the outcome fortunately.. However the steelers still and will always..... suck! Go Cards SEZ, you're okay with me. You are reasonable and it is only normal for you to hate the Steelers. To be honest with you, I have lsot interest in the NFL to where I can call myself a fan of any team. This mess in Cleveland is not the Browns. Deep down, eveyone here knows it. You guys can try to force it all you want, and for the 30 and under crowd, (since they don't know any better) Lerner's team IS the real thing, but dude, Baltimore has the connection to Cleveland, not the pseudo Browns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 They are already talking on ESPN radio, the refs blew the call. TWO feet on the ground and it is a posession. IF it comes out on the ground it is a dead ball. By your asshole interpretation a guy could catch a pass, run 55 yards, get tackled and then when the ball bounces off the ground have the pass called an interception. The pass was complete, the refs blew it and have already admitted so. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because the Steelers punked the Ravens and punched the shit out of them. Yawn. By my interpretation what you just said doesn't make since. I previously said two feet while falling forward and fall to the ground. By your interpretation, you should be bitching about PITs first drive where Washington had two feet down, control of the ball above his head, and Reed knocking it loose should have been called a fumble instead of INC. I don't agree with the rule, but it is what it is. If you watched games, you'd be up on this stuff. But you never do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 What dude? are you even watching? he made 0 steps extended for the ball and laid out for it. NO CATCH Great call by the refs and even better challenge by Harbaugh. Ghoolie is exactly correct Holmes caught the ball possessed it completely and then made two steps while having possession and then put a hand down while maintaining possession. By rule that is a catch. They blew it but that is common for NFL officiatiing, it SUCKS. You are so blinded by your self described "hate" you cannot even see what is obvious being total irrational and hate blinded. Sad I expected more from you. The also blew a call huge in the first game and blew the call on the first pass interference against Pittsburgh. And others. They had a bad day. As Usual. SezEJ I am glad at least you are objective this was clearly a catch rule. Masters is wrong and doesn't know the rules. Two steps after getting possession is a catch. Accoding to his interpretation if the ball is caught and the guy drags the defender ten yards and loses the ball then it is not a catch. Blown call and bad understanding of the rules by Masters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Masters is wrong and doesn't know the rules. Two steps after getting possession is a catch. Accoding to his interpretation if the ball is caught and the guy drags the defender ten yards and loses the ball then it is not a catch. Blown call and bad understanding of the rules by Masters Read much? That's retorical I specifically said in my first while falling see ("and falling (which he was during the two steps), you have to hang on to the ball through contact w/ the ground.") If a guy is falling while hit, he must maintain control to the ground. Like I said to Ghools, by your backwards twisted logic back, how was Washington's play on the first drive not a fumble? Two feet, control, hit, then ball comes loose. I don't make the rules, nor do I agree with it. But since you and Ghoolie haven't paid attention to a game since 1965, I get why you aren't up on what is called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Rich and Ghoolie, even a legit PIT can see it The Holmes incompletion was a good call but the refs refuse to call holding on the B-more o-line and the made up PI call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemosley01 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Doesn't the whole 'football-related' move come into play here? In other words, it's more than just getting two feet down - you have to make a football-related move (I recall this cam up during and Indy game a few years ago). It did look like a catch to me, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeahDAisafuturehofer... Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Rich and Ghoolie, even a legit PIT can see it Don't quote me as an expert but I from what I saw its an incompletion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Don't quote me as an expert ... We'll try not to. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Don't quote me as an expert but I from what I saw its an incompletion. Just saying that a Steelers fan agreed with the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTBH Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought it was a catch. Holmes stretching his arm out towards the endzone while he cradled the ball was the football move that's needed, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gips Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Eh. Ghoolie is just working a new angle, he can't really piss and moan about the management so he's gotta do something to rile up the monkeys Lol im sure ghoolie will still whine about mangini,ryan,kokinis,daboll,lerner...especially once they kick the steelers ass next year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeahDAisafuturehofer... Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought it was a catch. Holmes stretching his arm out towards the endzone while he cradled the ball was the football move that's needed, IMO. The Browns........ No glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 The Browns........ No glory. The Steelers.... 3 of them confirmed to live past the age of 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Nice bullshit call on running into the kicker. Looks like the refs received confirmation of Rooney's payment. Looks like Hines is teaching his buddies how to 'block'. I wonder why it is helmet-to-helmet on a QB or WR is not ok, but any other player is fine. The rule is on a Tackle of a Ball carrier , tacklers and players standing around...on a tackle helmet contact is acceptable, at least across the LOS. I think the rule was to protect Extended players, and players getting blindside blocks and such, QB is Throwing motion and follow up also.... Stop Bitching loser. Pathetic whiney azz crybabies. Pissed again because the Burgh~ has yet another Shot at the Lombardi ! Become a real team Again , then maybe you will stop sounding so freakin Pathetic !!! Its is sad sad how pussified some of you guys are !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Rich and Ghoolie, even a legit PIT can see it Add to that the 1st Pass Interference Call....BS little Sissy call. Pass Interference is only to be called IF the DB received an advantage over the receiver on the play. Clearly the 1st time was BS. The 2nd one (on Taylor) Was a good call. So, Tell me why in the heck That 1st one was interferance and the Last Play the Eagles had the Ball wasn't ???? (in the PHILLY Game) And anyone crying the "refs" Helped Pittsburgh...what ever You just Identified yourselves as Azzwipes , if that's the Case. Because IF the Officials were help Pittsburgh NONE of those interference calls get made and Baltimore never even SNIFFS the End Zone !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Add to that the 1st Pass Interference Call....BS little Sissy call. Pass Interference is only to be called IF the DB received an advantage over the receiver on the play. Clearly the 1st time was BS. The 2nd one (on Taylor) Was a good call. So, Tell me why in the heck That 1st one was interferance and the Last Play the Eagles had the Ball wasn't ???? (in the PHILLY Game) And anyone crying the "refs" Helped Pittsburgh...what ever You just Identified yourselves as Azzwipes , if that's the Case. Because IF the Officials were help Pittsburgh NONE of those interference calls get made and Baltimore never even SNIFFS the End Zone !!!! Not sure why you chose my post to reply with this I'd agree the 1st PI call was questionable, and that the last in the Eagles game should have been called. I didn't say the refs helped PIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball." If the ball comes loose on contact with the ground it is INC. If you watched a game more than once a year, you'd know this. Guys get get two feet in hit the ground and lose the ball on ground contact each week and it is INC. BOTH FEET Down ...Ball in control.... Santonio caught that one....Period. The Zebras didn't see it that way... But still ... Another instance , that provess the Officials were not "HELPING " Pittsburgh. If they were THAT WAS Never gonna get overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Not sure why you chose my post to reply with this I'd agree the 1st PI call was questionable, and that the last in the Eagles game should have been called. I didn't say the refs helped PIT. wasnt aimed at you Bro... I agreed with your assessment. So i piggybacked ya ! Sorry ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 BOTH FEET Down ...Ball in control.... Santonio caught that one....Period. The Zebras didn't see it that way... But still ... Another instance , that provess the Officials were not "HELPING " Pittsburgh. If they were THAT WAS Never gonna get overturned. But that ain't the rule (I don't agree with the rule, but that is neither here nor there). By what you said, Washington should have had a fumble on PITs first drive. By the rule, the Holmes play is no different than when a guy makes a sideline grab or one in the endzone, has control of the ball while getting two feet down, goes to the ground and loses the ball, and it's called incomplete. They changed the rule about 5 or 6 years ago that made it that after two feet down, if you go to the ground, you must maintain control of the ball when and after hitting the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 wasnt aimed at you Bro... I agreed with your assessment. So i piggybacked ya ! Sorry ! No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawgTracker Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 If he had stepped out of bounds it was a catch. He made two steps after controlling the ball and lunged for the goal line. It was a stupid call. Did the ground knock the ball out of his hand? Yes But, it was a legal reception before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 If he had stepped out of bounds it was a catch. He made two steps after controlling the ball and lunged for the goal line. It was a stupid call. Did the ground knock the ball out of his hand? Yes But, it was a legal reception before that. His two steps were in stride then to the ground. If he went out of bounds the same way and the ball came loose, the call would still be incomplete. The rule is you must maintain control of the ball when you hit the ground after initially making the catch and only getting two feet down before hitting the ground. If your two steps are while running or both just coming down planting after jumping for the ball, it's still your first two feet down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 If he had stepped out of bounds it was a catch. He made two steps after controlling the ball and lunged for the goal line. It was a stupid call. Did the ground knock the ball out of his hand? Yes But, it was a legal reception before that. Good call glad you are objective enough to understand the rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 But that ain't the rule (I don't agree with the rule, but that is neither here nor there). By what you said, Washington should have had a fumble on PITs first drive. By the rule, the Holmes play is no different than when a guy makes a sideline grab or one in the endzone, has control of the ball while getting two feet down, goes to the ground and loses the ball, and it's called incomplete. They changed the rule about 5 or 6 years ago that made it that after two feet down, if you go to the ground, you must maintain control of the ball when and after hitting the ground. Yes ...But even Simms said that last nite Two Feet Down Ball in Control. Its a Catch. Nobody Knows the actual Rule ya know ! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Yes ...But even Simms said that last nite Two Feet Down Ball in Control. Its a Catch. Nobody Knows the actual Rule ya know ! ? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.