Collie is out cold.

[keggerz]

What's your point? By those rules, Calvin Johnson and Arian Foster clearly had possession. Why were those ruled incomplete?

read the rule again about going to the ground

[Bier Meister]

just watched it for the 20th time....3 feet down

[CaptainHook]

field of play vs ez

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.

[keggerz]

What's your point? By those rules, Calvin Johnson and Arian Foster clearly had possession. Why were those ruled incomplete?

my point is that it was a catch according to the rule and what you say that YOU saw...and you saw one foot less then we did (and they just replayed it. It was a no doubt catch, imo)

 

CJ and Foster:

 

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.

 

 

surely that can't be so hard to understand about the CJ catch...i won't comment on the Foster one since I haven't seen it yet

[Bier Meister]

scuse me.... going to the ground in the ez.

 

edit: or maybe just going to the ground

Edited November 8, 2010 by Bier Meister

[keggerz]

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.

CJ was going to the ground...you are using the wrong part of the rule for that

 

basically what you are quoting is that if a player catches the ball in the EZ is then standing there with possession and gets popped and fumbles it then it isn't a fumble because he is in the EZ

Edited November 8, 2010 by keggerz

[keggerz]

just watched it for the 20th time....3 feet down

and brought the ball in from above shoulder level to his midsection area too.

[keggerz]

good nite all!

[CaptainHook]

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.

 

Maybe this is the reason they ruled it incomplete.

[keggerz]

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.

 

Maybe this is the reason they ruled it incomplete.

he wasn't going to the ground...you really are grasping at straws...you were doing better just agreeing with the officials.

[keggerz]

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.

 

Maybe this is the reason they ruled it incomplete.

and the officials already said they ruled the way they did because he did NOT get the 2nd foot down...watch the replay and tell me you can back that statement up.

[bushwacked]

Maybe this is the reason they ruled it incomplete.

 

Maybe yer a cartoon.

[keggerz]

good nite again

[CaptainHook]

You really gotta see the Foster play . . .

 

It was incomplete folks! It was helmet-to-helmet! It was a penalty! Eagles still win!

[CaptainHook]

There have been so many plays ruled incomplete due to this rule. . . you guys are acting like this is brand new . . . he didn't have it long enough in the refs judgment. Andy Reid had probably 15 minutes and 50 replays to challenge it and he didn't. I wonder why?

[Bier Meister]

night guys.......hope collie is going to be ok.

[CaptainHook]

Maybe yer a cartoon.

[Azazello1313]

There have been so many plays ruled incomplete due to this rule. . . you guys are acting like this is brand new . . . he didn't have it long enough in the refs judgment. Andy Reid had probably 15 minutes and 50 replays to challenge it and he didn't. I wonder why?

 

the rule you are talking about entails going to the ground with the ball. not even close to being the issue here. the rule at issue here is "two feet and a football move". you seem to be admitting that he had two feet down with possession, and he was covering the ball and turning upfield when he was hit. that is possession.

[CaptainHook]

the rule you are talking about entails going to the ground with the ball. not even close to being the issue here. the rule at issue here is "two feet and a football move". you seem to be admitting that he had two feet down with possession, and he was covering the ball and turning upfield when he was hit. that is possession.

while i've referenced a couple of plays like that, there have been tons of plays similar to the Collie play today in the field of play that are ruled incomplete. At full speed, I am not surprised it was ruled incomplete. In slow mo, I see possession, but as he takes a step he is contacted and the ball came out. Surely the Eagles agreed or that gets challenged? They keep the ball? They had 15 minutes to look at it?

[Azazello1313]

while i've referenced a couple of plays like that, there have been tons of plays similar to the Collie play today in the field of play that are ruled incomplete. At full speed, I am not surprised it was ruled incomplete. In slow mo, I see possession, but as he takes a step he is contacted and the ball came out. Surely the Eagles agreed or that gets challenged? They keep the ball? They had 15 minutes to look at it?

 

forget other plays, forget what the refs saw at full speed. looking at the play in slow motion replay, he had possession, at least two feet down, and made a "football move". do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[NSab]

Collie is ok, well he does have a concussion , so not good for my team. I never knew Hook was such a biased Homer, wow.

Suprising, I haven't been around in a while but never remembered that side of Capt. hook.

[CaptainHook]

forget other plays, forget what the refs saw at full speed. looking at the play in slow motion replay, he had possession, at least two feet down, and made a "football move". do you agree or disagree with that statement?

I disagree. I do not think he made a football move.

[Azazello1313]

I disagree. I do not think he made a football move.

 

[CaptainHook]

Collie is ok, well he does have a concussion , so not good for my team. I never knew Hook was such a biased Homer, wow.

Suprising, I haven't been around in a while but never remembered that side of Capt. hook.

What part is biased? That I think it was the right call for the personal foul? Or that I don't think it was a catch and fumble?

 

I've already said I don't think it was a cheap shot. I don't think it was intentional. Or that he should be fined. I think Samuels is an azzhat. But I also congratulated the Eagles on a well deserved win.

Edited November 8, 2010 by CaptainHook

[bushwacked]

Maybe if Hook makes a couple more posts in this thread, it will work out in his favor.