CaptainHook

Collie is out cold.

Recommended Posts

Some questions for you.

 

How many feet did you say he got down (earlier in this thread)? two feet down then a step . . . so three?

Did you say he did or didn't make a football move in this thread? no, I don't think he did. He was in the process of completing the catch.

How long does a player have to hold the ball for it to be a catch(you mentioned he didn't have it long enough)? Long enough for the official to deem it a catch.

Do you think it was an incomplete pass based on the slo-mo video that YOU saw, not what the officials ruled? yes

Did you look at the screen shots? yes

Will you look at the screen shots? already did

After you look at the screen shots will you answer a few more questions? sure

 

assuming you looked at the screen shots:

How many feet did he get down? two feet down on the landing, hit on his first step

Did he make a football move? NO!

How long did he have the ball? not long enough to be a catch

Do you think it was an incomplete pass based on the screen shots that you just looked at, not what the officials rules? yes.

 

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that was my initial reaction when it happened.

 

 

 

I did not care for how the Philly players acted after the play as Collie lay motionless on the turf. Still don't.

 

 

 

No, that was just one in particular who said there was no helmet to helmet contact, when there clearly was. he has not retracted his statement, why not go bother him? It's been hours. It was NOT a catch and fumble according to NFL rules.

 

 

 

My very next post after the TV timeout and subsequent replays was that it was not a cheap shot. I still feel it was a penalty, but should not result in a fine or anything. I really don't care what you feel about what I was doing for 15 minutes. I was watching to see if Collie was ok, and texting a friend about it. I didn't think, "oh crap, I better post FAST that it wasn't a cheap shot or somebody might wonder what took so long."

but later you said you wanted to know what the rules were...how can you say according to NFL rules but not know them :wacko:

 

Two feet down doesn't make a catch. Hit on the third step. You might want to read the NFL rule and check out the ruling in Week 1 against Calvin Johnson or see the TD reversal today against Arian Foster. Those were plays that looked like catches much more than the Collie play. But by NFL rules, they are not. Reid must have agreed.

so what step did he get hit on again? Feel free to look at that link of screen shots before answering.

 

I'm pretty sure they removed all mention of needing "feet down" for several years now. Player has to demonstrate posession. Refs deemed he had not. He catches the ball, and his two feet come down simultaneously. As he is taking a step, he is contacted and the ball comes out. I've seen several plays the last few years where the player has his feet down but it's still ruled incomplete.

 

 

He clearly caught the ball. But he didn't maintain it long enough for it to be complete. A lot of plays that are ruled incomplete look like completions in slow motion.

:tup: huh :tup:

 

I thought he caught it and landed on two feet. As he took a step, he was contacted and the ball came out.

you still stand by the above?

 

He never turned his body. He landed, and as he was taking his first step after catching the ball, gets hit. Incomplete.

 

Like I said, I'd like to see the NFL rules on what they consider "defenseless." Plus, I've seen this ruled the same way in other games, so I'm not surprised it was ruled incomplete again here.

How about this statement, you still stand by it after looking at the screen shots?

Edited by keggerz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what time is it for you in egypt when you watch the games...must be tough on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no fair hook you hid your answers in my quote and they can't be re-quoted...at least bold them or put them in another color...you don't debate very fair when you are wrong and can't admit it. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keggerz, you do realize that catching a football does not make it a completion, right?

 

It used to be two feet down.

 

Then they changed it to a "move common to football".

 

I'm really not sure what it is now. I do know that he has to complete the catch, which did not happen on on this play.

Edited by CaptainHook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since hook answered my questions inside the quote of what I wrote it was hard to see his answers so I will put his answers in BLUE BOLD after my questions:

 

 

Some questions for you.

 

How many feet did you say he got down (earlier in this thread)?two feet down then a step . . . so three?

Did you say he did or didn't make a football move in this thread?no, I don't think he did. He was in the process of completing the catch.

How long does a player have to hold the ball for it to be a catch(you mentioned he didn't have it long enough)?Long enough for the official to deem it a catch.

Do you think it was an incomplete pass based on the slo-mo video that YOU saw, not what the officials ruled?yes

Did you look at the screen shots? yes

Will you look at the screen shots?already did

After you look at the screen shots will you answer a few more questions?sure

 

assuming you looked at the screen shots:

How many feet did he get down?two feet down on the landing, hit on his first step

Did he make a football move?NO!

How long did he have the ball?not long enough to be a catch

Do you think it was an incomplete pass based on the screen shots that you just looked at, not what the officials rules?yes

 

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keggerz, you do realize that catching a football does not make it a completion, right?

 

It used to be two feet down.

 

Then they changed it to a "move common to football".

 

I'm really not sure what it is now. I do know that he has to complete the catch, which did not happen on on this play.

Yes I do...I also realize that FOUR steps (three if you want to get ticky tack about the 1st if it was down or not) is a catch...especially when he catches it with his hands by his head then pulls it down into his midsection to protect the ball and himself from the hit he knew he was going to take...the fact that you can't admit that or say you don't see it is simply amazing...especially after being shown the screen shots...as for the rule, give me a second and I will post it(which I think I already did)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank goodness you took the time to do that. It looks so much better. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NFL said Monday it will not hand out any discipline for the hit, even though Coleman was penalized for unnecessary roughness.

 

The NFL said because the helmet-to-helmet contact was a result of Collie being driven toward Coleman by Mikell's legal hit, there will be no fine. The league said game officials have been instructed to err on the side of player safety, and when in doubt, "penalize in situations such as this for unnecessary roughness."

 

So, according to the NFL, it was the right call. Please continue all your bitching and moaning.

 

So in other words, the officials made the call because they were instructed to make that call in that situation REGARDLESS if its the right call or not. In actuality, what they are saying is it was the wrong call because on further review the hit was legal. They erred on the side of caution as instructed. Wouldnt err be short for error? Hmmmm. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank goodness you took the time to do that. It looks so much better. :wacko:

 

Especially in Colts blue. That was a nice touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I do...I also realize that FOUR steps (three if you want to get ticky tack about the 1st if it was down or not) is a catch...especially when he catches it with his hands by his head then pulls it down into his midsection to protect the ball and himself from the hit he knew he was going to take...the fact that you can't admit that or say you don't see it is simply amazing...especially after being shown the screen shots...as for the rule, give me a second and I will post it(which I think I already did)

I think I have said several times it looks as if he gets his two feet down and takes a step. Do you want me to get T-shirts printed up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do know that he has to complete the catch, which did not happen on on this play.

I must have watched a different replay. Did'nt even look close to not being a catch to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially in Colts blue. That was a nice touch.

Colts blue is a little darker. That was more Lions blue. Can you fix that keg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in other words, the officials made the call because they were instructed to make that call in that situation REGARDLESS if its the right call or not. In actuality, what they are saying is it was the wrong call because on further review the hit was legal. They erred on the side of caution as instructed. Wouldnt err be short for error? Hmmmm. :wacko:

My point has been that according to NFL rules, that was the right call. So yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I have said several times it looks as if he gets his two feet down and takes a step. Do you want me to get T-shirts printed up?

I know you said you saw him get hit on the 3rd step but that was when you were watching the video...did you miss that the screen shots show him getting hit on the FOURTH step?

 

You also have said he didn't make a "football move" (not that that matters) but how can you miss him catch the ball with his hands and go from being able to see his name and number on his jersey to turning and tucking the ball into his stomach where you can't see the jersey number or name and say he didn't "complete" the catch or make a football move,seriously?

 

My point has been that according to NFL rules, that was the right call. So yes.

 

Here is the NFL rule on POSSESSION (which is used to designate a catch)

 

Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered,

a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,

there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as

distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession

of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the

ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses

control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no

possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch,

interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent)

in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline,

he must retain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the act of falling

to the ground and after hitting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered

loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has

been a loss of possession.

A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is

contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a

touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss

of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

 

 

So now what say you about it being a catch or not according to NFL rules?

And please take your homer glasses off...stop worrying about what has been ruled in the past...just be an unbiased observer...can you do that?

Edited by keggerz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: there are way more rules than that for a catch :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: there are way more rules than that for a catch :tup:

No there are not...that is from the rule book on POSSESSION...which is what designates a catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NFL said Monday it will not hand out any discipline for the hit, even though Coleman was penalized for unnecessary roughness.

 

The NFL said because the helmet-to-helmet contact was a result of Collie being driven toward Coleman by Mikell's legal hit, there will be no fine. The league said game officials have been instructed to err on the side of player safety, and when in doubt, "penalize in situations such as this for unnecessary roughness."

 

So, according to the NFL, it was the right call. Please continue all your bitching and moaning.

 

Not what they mean by "the right call", they mean "the right decision to throw the flag." They can't retract penalties after the game so they just won't fine the player. And your argument gets thinner by the post, maybe if you just stop....oh never mind. Anyway, the NFL said it was the right call based on the sensitivity around head shots NOT because it was a penalty. The NFL is backing up its refs saying it's the right call because the refs did what they were instructed to do, throw the flag, not because it was a penalty. Now I haven't read this entire War and Peace thread of backpeddling and stubbornness but it appears you just posted something that supports everyone elses argument, not yours. Good move. Accordingly to YOUR post the NFL says "when in doubt"(which means if you don't really know..); if the refs can't tell if it's a penalty, call one anyway. So the refs did what they were instructed to do, throw a flag.

 

This is due to players being fined even though during the game their hit wasn't viewed as a penalty. It's egg on the face of the NFL to fine a player that wasn't flagged, to avoid this the instructions are to throw flags like rice at a wedding. Now while I can't tell what your argument really is at this point, that train derailed a long time ago, IMO there was no penalty on the play but the refs did what they were asked to do to protect player safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry man. still wasn't a reception. :wacko:

 

:tup: Great comeback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out how keg posted dead space. Did he pass out? It won't let me do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.