T1B

It's an NFL discussion forum...


and nobody knows the NFL rules?


Give me a sec to get done laughing here...


OK, I'm still not laughing as hard as when the guys in the booth were talking out their asses.

I'm quite familiar with the rule...

SINCE I'VE ACTUALLY WATCHED A FOOTBALL GAME IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

Comes up almost every fucking game.


Way to tard it up, tards.


If a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, he must maintain control and keep the ball off the shag until he comes to rest.


Been that way quite a while, idiots.

Raiders win this game rather easily if anyone other than JaJabba QB'ing. It will be that way until Al sacks up, realizes he overpaid for this piece of crap, and starts Gradkowski or re-signs Garcia. Russell is the worst QB in the league hands down.

Sorry Raiderfan, I was pulling for you.

Dinsdale wrote:
If a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, he must maintain control and keep the ball off the shag until he comes to rest.

Been that way quite a while, idiots.

Wrong.

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) 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."

Had Murphy kept full control of the ball as he hit the ground including having the ball touch the ground, it would have been ruled a catch. The replay that ESPN showed (and the officials used to make their call) after the fact clearly showed that Murphy never had full control of the ball before it hit the ground. If you recall, the NFL "clarified" the catch rule after the whole Bert Emanuel "non-catch" in 1999. Given the long history of the NFL, 10 years isn't "quite a while" but thanks for trying.

.m2 wrote:You cross the plain of the goal line with possession...

Interesting use of metaphor here.

Are you using "plain" here to imply that the end zone is an extensive area of land having few inequalities of surface? Or, perhaps more specifically applicable to football in a direct Shakespearean reference, a field of battle? But then maybe you only meant to point out that the goal line is well defined, something that is free from artifice, ornament, or extraneous matter.

I stand in awe of your rhetorical abilities. It's amazing the language skills that a (alleged) Berkeley education can impart.

With my pathetically limited imagination and language capability I probably would have refered to the imaginary boundary extending vertically from goal line as a "plane" (even though, technically, it's only a segment of a plane).

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.

Dinsdale wrote:

If a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, he must maintain control and keep the ball off the shag until he comes to rest.

Is this official rule terminology or are you talking out of ass?

jiminphilly wrote: Wrong.



"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) 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."

Uhhhmmm...


That's what I said.

10 years isn't "quite a while"

When it comes to talking football on the internets, there's one rule that stands out above all others...

Don't be a M2.

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) 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."

Uhhhmmm...


That's what I said.

Not quite.

If a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, he must maintain control and keep the ball off the shag until he comes to rest.

You said the player had to keep the ball off the ground until he comes to a rest. According to the rule, he does not, as long as he maintains full possession the ball can touch the ground. There is a significant difference on what you said and what the rule is.

10 years isn't "quite a while"

When it comes to talking football on the internets, there's one rule that stands out above all others...

Don't be a M2.

calling someone out for not knowing the rule is not an .m2. Attemping to call out everyone else for NOT knowing something and being wrong about it? That's an .m2.

Apparently, our definitions of "keeping it off the shag" are different, you petty fuck.

If it's in the receiver's control, it's obviously not "on the shag."


But really -- I'm sorry your wife yelled at you this morning.

.m2 wrote:He caught the ball... had possession... and two feet on the ground..

That's 6 points

I thought the correct call was made.

Sincerely,
Ed Hochuli

Bullshit call aside, Russel's inaccuracy, rookie wr mistakes, nary a blitz and the decision to drop back into a prevent at the end beat them. Get fucked John Marshall.

On the bright side, we got the lowly queefs this week. Hopefully Chaz S. will be back. Khalif Barnes could be an upgrade at RT.

I'll take the win, but I admit, my Bolts looked like absolute horse shit. If that injury to Hardwick is serious than the O-Line will be even more fucked than they played last night. IMO, the Raiders play calling lost them that game. Why did they go away from the running game around the middle of the 2nd quarter. For the 1st quarter and into the second they were absolutely buttfucking the Chargers up the middle on every play ripping of large chunks of yardage. Why would you go away from hammering the shit out of the opposing team on the ground when it was working?

jiminphilly wrote:Had Murphy kept full control of the ball as he hit the ground including having the ball touch the ground, it would have been ruled a catch. The replay that ESPN showed (and the officials used to make their call) after the fact clearly showed that Murphy never had full control of the ball before it hit the ground. If you recall, the NFL "clarified" the catch rule after the whole Bert Emanuel "non-catch" in 1999. Given the long history of the NFL, 10 years isn't "quite a while" but thanks for trying.

Strange how the officials in the Pats/Buff game didn't rule Watson's catch that way.

R-Jack wrote:

Paul wrote:Keep telling yourself that, shitstain.

Telling myself what? That you are fat and I am not? It's true.

Don't forget that you had a chance to prove the world wrong, but you welched on your own challange a few bannings ago.

Tell ya what, Fido....nip at my heels over in the main forum. Keep that shit out of here, got it?

FUCK the Raiders BTW....they're our bitches yet AGAIN on Sunday.

Sirfindafold wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:Had Murphy kept full control of the ball as he hit the ground including having the ball touch the ground, it would have been ruled a catch. The replay that ESPN showed (and the officials used to make their call) after the fact clearly showed that Murphy never had full control of the ball before it hit the ground. If you recall, the NFL "clarified" the catch rule after the whole Bert Emanuel "non-catch" in 1999. Given the long history of the NFL, 10 years isn't "quite a while" but thanks for trying.

Strange how the officials in the Pats/Buff game didn't rule Watson's catch that way.

Watson maintained control. Big difference.

The Raiduhs under coach Tom Cable just bolted (pun intended) out of the NFL doldrums. They punched the Chargers in the face and slapped them silly. With a Brees, Brady, Rivers at QB they would have rolled up 45 on the scoreboard. The Raiduh defense put a pounding on a supposedly good offensive line, knocking three starters out of the game . and harassing Rivers most of the night. Richard Seymour hopped off the bus and dominated.

They showed some real talent with several second year players and a couple of good looking rookies. If they follow up and continue to play at the level they showed last night, I'll call it right, they go 8-8...you heard it here first!

^^ Exactly. The Raiduh's dominated in the trenches for most of the game. The Chargers did buckle down on the run in the second half, so my guess is Norv's soft practices had the defense playing soft at the start. The Charger Oline just got their butts kicked, period. The difference in the game was QB, Rivers the Chargers best player, kept San Diego in the game and made most of the plays for the win. This game was the perfect example of why QB is the most important position in the NFL.

On a side note, it appears Garcia was cut because he didn't get to compete for the starting job & was unhappy as the backup under that scenario.

"On a side note, it appears Garcia was cut because he didn't get to compete for the starting job & was unhappy as the backup under that scenario."


...I'll garun-dam-tee you, if Garcia was at QB last night, the Raiduhs win easily.

ChargerMike wrote:"On a side note, it appears Garcia was cut because he didn't get to compete for the starting job & was unhappy as the backup under that scenario."


...I'll garun-dam-tee you, if Garcia was at QB last night, the Raiduhs win easily.

Apparently you didn't watch him in the pre-season or the end of last season. Believe it or not, he was actually outplayed by J. Russell in the last regular season game last year when Tampa had a playoff birth on the line.

Not a good game for Russell.
Starting two rookie receivers -- and having a 2nd year guy in the slot -- doesn't help.
But he's got to play better.
Getting Schilens and/or Walker on the field should help.

Seymonster is a difference-maker for the 'dud defense.
However, the game-winning Bolt drive was a predictable ending.
Seen it too often.

Short week @ Pointyhead.
Never easy.
We need a W.

Sirfindafold wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:"On a side note, it appears Garcia was cut because he didn't get to compete for the starting job & was unhappy as the backup under that scenario."


...I'll garun-dam-tee you, if Garcia was at QB last night, the Raiduhs win easily.

Apparently you didn't watch him in the pre-season or the end of last season. Believe it or not, he was actually outplayed by J. Russell in the last regular season game last year when Tampa had a playoff birth on the line.

...yes, you're right fold, I didn't watch him in pre-season OR the end of last year. However, knowing how bad Russell sucks, and how close the game was, I'll stand by my statement...they would have won with Garcia!

I didn't want to get into a discussion about the Murphy TD overrule, but I will post something now.

Watch this TD pass, beginning at 1:40.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... -Titans-31

If the Murphy TD had to be reversed, how is this one not?


Oh, that's right, it wasn't the Raiders.


Fuckin' cocksuckers.