Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

These refs have got to go


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#41 MaineManPanther

MaineManPanther

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,485
  • Reputation: 59
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:14 PM

From what I understand it doesn't have to be simultaneous initially, just before defender would be considered down.


#42 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 15-November 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,238
  • Reputation: 730
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:16 PM

wouldn't the Packers get disqualified for that?


What do you mean by disqualified?

#43 fieryprophet

fieryprophet

    WARNING: Do not annoy!

  • Joined: 15-December 08
  • posts: 5,421
  • Reputation: 5,668
  • LocationLa Grange, NC
SUPPORTER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

The best thing about this fiasco is that the Packers are going to fume all week and then ram the Saints with no lube whatsoever.

#44 AR-15 Panther

AR-15 Panther

    Cough "Here" Cough

  • Joined: 26-July 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 320
  • Reputation: 42
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

That game was GREAT! No crying, very entertaining, great finish!



#45 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • Joined: 13-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,748
  • Reputation: 2,344
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

I thought you couldn't get possession of the ball in the air. If you catch the ball in the air but you can't bring it to the ground, it's never called a catch then fumble. It's an incomplete pass. That's the way it's always been. Tate reached in while the defender was still in the air. I don't see why that wouldn't be considered simultaneous.


A catch is not completed until the player is down and maintains possession. That is true. And yes, the rule is the tie on simultaneous possession goes to the receiver. But in this case there was no tie. The defender had the ball intercepted and kept possession all the way to the ground. He had both his hands on it. Only after it was intercepted did Tate reach in and also get his two hands on the remaining parts of the ball.

At least, that is how I would have ruled in my unprofessional capacity.

#46 megadeth078

megadeth078

    hate hate hate

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,067
  • Reputation: 683
  • LocationTexas
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:19 PM

What do you mean by disqualified?


Well, if one team doesn't show up to a game, do they make one team play out the full game by themselves or do they just disqualify the other team for not showing up? I know an offense can run a play with less than 11 defenders on the field, but I've never seen a situation where a defense sends nobody onto the field. I'm just curious what would happen if a team refuses to continue to play. Anybody know what the rule is on this?

#47 megadeth078

megadeth078

    hate hate hate

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,067
  • Reputation: 683
  • LocationTexas
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:20 PM

A catch is not completed until the player is down and maintains possession. That is true. And yes, the rule is the tie on simultaneous possession goes to the receiver. But in this case there was no tie. The defender had the ball intercepted and kept possession all the way to the ground. He had both his hands on it. Only after it was intercepted did Tate reach in and also get his two hands on the remaining parts of the ball.

At least, that is how I would have ruled in my unprofessional capacity.


Tate still reached in while Jennings was still in the air. You can't "complete" an interception while still in the air, the same way a receiver can't complete a pass before making it to the ground. Jennings shouldn't have left it up for discussion and should have just batted the pass down.

#48 Riverboat Ron

Riverboat Ron

    Sinking Ship

  • Joined: 16-October 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,324
  • Reputation: 1,228
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:20 PM

The best thing about this fiasco is that the Packers are going to fume all week and then ram the Saints with no lube whatsoever.


Posted Image

#49 Falcons1stPanthers2nd

Falcons1stPanthers2nd

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,065
  • Reputation: 197
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:21 PM

Giving into unions is why this country sucks and you want the NFL to give into a union that couldn't do their jobs well enough to begin with and had pet teams (steelers always getting a yard extra on the spot)

Still willing to watch the entire season with them.

#50 fieryprophet

fieryprophet

    WARNING: Do not annoy!

  • Joined: 15-December 08
  • posts: 5,421
  • Reputation: 5,668
  • LocationLa Grange, NC
SUPPORTER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:24 PM

Giving into unions is why this country sucks and you want the NFL to give into a union that couldn't do their jobs well enough to begin with and had pet teams (steelers always getting a yard extra on the spot)

Still willing to watch the entire season with them.


Union membership is at an all-time low, so your theory is invalid.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users