NFL Regular Season Thread (Or Duck, Duck, Grey Duck and other Children's Games)

[Kodos]

Caught, and once over the line = TD. Steelers got hosed.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Caught, and once over the line = TD. Steelers got hosed.

Going to the ground while making the catch and didn't control it when it it the ground, incomplete.

[stevew]

One less Steelers potential home playoff game means at least $3-400 in lost Uber/Lyft earnings for me.

[stevew]

I'm mad because James should have been coached better how to control the ball first and then to lunge for the line. I hate the rule but it is the rule. And I really hate replay.

[stevew]

Can't we just make fumbling the ball through the goal line a 15-yard penalty assessed after the play instead of a death penalty Touchback?

[Butter]

Saying "that should've been a TD" completely ignores what has been the rule since the Calvin Johnson non-catch years and years ago. He's falling to the ground while making the catch, so he has to control the ball all the way to the ground. He didn't. No catch.

You may not like the rule, but this was a pretty clear application of this widely quoted catch rule. Complete the process while going to the ground.

Also, don't throw a dipshit fake spike play to lose the game, but that one is less quoted.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Butter

Saying "that should've been a TD" completely ignores what has been the rule since the Calvin Johnson non-catch years and years ago. He's falling to the ground while making the catch, so he has to control the ball all the way to the ground. He didn't. No catch.

You may not like the rule, but this was a pretty clear application of this widely quoted catch rule. Complete the process while going to the ground.

Also, don't throw a dipshit fake spike play to lose the game, but that one is less quoted.

The dip shit play (and it was one) shouldn't even have occured, so there isn't a need to really talk about it, but I hear ya.

It might be the "rule" but the rule hasn't been consistently enforced since ever, and it is affecting game results.

Off the top of my head, there was touchdown against you guys that should have been called back (Grimble fumbled over the goal line that should have been called back but stood as a TD), and the pats last second win against Houston (with Crooks not controlling possession to the ground, ruled a TD) that should have been reversed. That's just 2 plays off the top of my head. How many more of those are out there?

I am all for whatever rule that is going to go into play, the frustration is, if that's the rule, then it should be the rule all the time. Not called here and there and whenever another Ref or replay official is involved. If there is so much confusion by the guys calling the game, the rule needs to be changed.

Home Field advantage pretty much just got decided on a call that is subjective based on whoever is calling or looking under the hood during the game. Ya it sucked because it went against my Steelers, but this isn't about that. The NFL needs to get its crap together as this stuff shouldn't happen to any NFL team.

[NobodyHere]

I hate the Patriots as much as anyone but that's not a catch in today's NFL. The ball clearly moved when the receiver hit the ground. It's not like he took a couple strides and then fell to the ground either.

[SlyBelle1]

I am a huge Steelers fan myself...and although I don't agree with the NFL rule, yesterday's call was consistent with how they have been calling it so hard for me to be mad at that call...when I saw the replay, I knew how the call was going to go....for me the Steelers lost the game in many other ways where it shouldn't have come down to that play.

- Conservative play calling by Haley again (especially late)....although Bell is great, can't always go to him on first down on every drive...if they would have changed it up a bit late with some play action, Pats likely don't even get the ball.

- Offensive line late mistakes....holding and motion penalty on critical drive.

- Pitt's defensive back who had a pretty make-able interception to end the game.

- The play before Ben's interception, why run a crossing route that keeps them likely in bounds? Throw to the endzone...worse case, you still get the FG.

- I have no problem with the Steelers taking a shot into the endzone, but they threw the worst possible route...a slant...first takes too much time and second, way too many bodies where what happened often happens....throw a quick fade where only your player can get it...otherwise line up and kick the FG.

Very disappointed with the outcome but maybe this lights their fire as they enter the playoffs..at least I can hope

[HomerSimpson98]

Terrible call. Obvious he had possession and was lunging for the goalline. If thats the letter of the law, the law needs to change.

BTW, yesterday is why the NFL is almost unwatchable. Nothing to do with players kneeling and all that other bullshit. Its obvious stuff that is killing the game. The PI calls are over the top ridiculous as well.

[molson]

What should the rule be to avoid confusion? I think if they made the definition of a catch more liberal, there'd be a ton more fumbles after catches and I don't know if that'd be satisfying either. If that ball came lose as he was falling to the ground, there's no way that would be called a fumble, and that's the real question regarding whether he had possession and whether he's a runner or a receiver.

And if he's a receiver, it's obviously an incomplete pass, and I don't understand why that's controversial. The ball hit the ground and he didn't have control of it.

One two of these controversies ago I remember the pushed idea was that there shouldn't be different rules at the end zone than anywhere else. But, this this question of whether a play is a catch or an incomplete pass is one where it doesn't matter if you're in the end zone - that's an incomplete pass anywhere on the field. But here, too it's "right call, terrible rule!" I want to see a proposed catch rule, in all these different scenarios, that would forever avoid confusion and ensure everybody is content with what a catch is. I'm not sure it exists.

I'm also amused by the idea that how exciting a catch is, or how important it is in a game, should weigh in favor of it being a catch. I've seen that sentiment a bunch, "if that's not a catch, the rule is wrong and the NFL is only hurting themselves!" How exactly would you fairly write "excitement index" into a the definition of watch a catch is?

[Logan]

The reason you can't word a perfect catch rule is because the rules have changed so much from where we began, that you then need to craft a rule that basically reverses every one of those amendments. It started as something pretty subjective. There are a lot of other calls involved in football that are also subjective. We don't have a seven step process for determining pass interference or holding either.

BTW the greatest part of this whole thing was the NFL's official video explanation of this play starting with "Roethlisberger completes the pass to James..."

[molson]

What did the rule used to be and when did they change it? I'm pretty sure a pass was incomplete if the player lost control and ball hit the ground on the way down since I was a kid.

I think one of the things that has definitely changed is instant replay. Refs used to make a call and we all moved on, so we probably all developed an idea of what a catch "looked like," to us. Kind of like how baseball strike zones evolved over the years to something that wasn't the in the rulebook. But when you have to break it down into multiple angles and everybody watches the play 8 million times over the next day, then suddenly we really have to confront the minutia of the language of the rules and what they mean in contexts, including in unusual contexts in and around the end zone.

[muns]

Originally Posted by molson

And if he's a receiver, it's obviously an incomplete pass, and I don't understand why that's controversial. The ball hit the ground and he didn't have control of it.

Its controversial because most everybody can see it was a clear catch including the Head of officials which I will get into later in this post. How can anybody sit here and say he didn't catch it? This is where there is debate because its like we aren't watching the same game.

He caught the ball and was not touched. He controlled the ball and reached for a TD after he caught the ball (his knee was on the ground making it a catch). He only lost possession (if we can even say that) when the ball hit the ground after it broke the plane of the endzone. He made a separate and clearly observable move by extending the ball over the goal line.

If he didnt have control of the ball he wouldn't have even been able to reach for the end zone. He would have either dropped it or fumbled it or been juggling it. But since he made an athletic play after he caught the ball to reach for a touchdown it doesn't count? Are you arguing that the ball is moving as it crosses the goal line? It's not like this all occurred at the same time bang-bang. He literally extended after making the catch.

The NFL in all its glory had the SVP of Officiating Al Riveron review the play after the game. It took him all 10 seconds to contradict himself.

He literally said, “As we can see here, Roethlisberger completes a pass to James.”

How in gods green earth can you say he caught it, and then say he didn't? You cant start with he caught the pass and then dot-dot-dot.

[molson]

Getting touched has nothing to do with whether a pass is complete or not.

And being at or near the end zone has nothing to do with whether a pass is complete or not.

And I don't get why the Riverson comment is evidence somehow that this was a catch. He obviously just used the term casually and imprecisely as he was explaining it in a live take. I don't get the point - are you saying he slipped from his real opinion and had to double-back to cover up the conspiracy or something?

[muns]

Originally Posted by Logan

BTW the greatest part of this whole thing was the NFL's official video explanation of this play starting with "Roethlisberger completes the pass to James..."

I was just putting that into my post. Just a little nutty

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by molson

What should the rule be to avoid confusion? I think if they made the definition of a catch more liberal, there'd be a ton more fumbles after catches and I don't know if that'd be satisfying either. If that ball came lose as he was falling to the ground, there's no way that would be called a fumble, and that's the real question regarding whether he had possession and whether he's a runner or a receiver.

And if he's a receiver, it's obviously an incomplete pass, and I don't understand why that's controversial. The ball hit the ground and he didn't have control of it.

One two of these controversies ago I remember the pushed idea was that there shouldn't be different rules at the end zone than anywhere else. But, this this question of whether a play is a catch or an incomplete pass is one where it doesn't matter if you're in the end zone - that's an incomplete pass anywhere on the field. But here, too it's "right call, terrible rule!" I want to see a proposed catch rule, in all these different scenarios, that would forever avoid confusion and ensure everybody is content with what a catch is. I'm not sure it exists.

I'm also amused by the idea that how exciting a catch is, or how important it is in a game, should weigh in favor of it being a catch. I've seen that sentiment a bunch, "if that's not a catch, the rule is wrong and the NFL is only hurting themselves!" How exactly would you fairly write "excitement index" into a the definition of watch a catch is?

When watching it live it never crossed my mind that it wasn’t a catch - to me, if I had to break it down:

• He caught the ball
• He controlled it, establishing possession
• He made a move to the endzone while the ball was under perfect control, making a football move
• He crossed the plane while the ball was under his perfect control
• After he had broken the plane, the ball hit the ground and moved

For me, absolutely he was the equivalent of a runner by the time the ball moved. It was similar in process to the fumble the young GB receiver had in the game before (I forget his name), other than the ball was dislodged by a defender rather than the ground, but they had established possession in exactly the same way

• He caught the ball
• He controlled it, establishing possession
• He made a move upfield while the ball was under perfect control, making a football move
• He was hit and the ball came loose
• Carolina recovered the ball and gained possession

It’s also very similar to the Dez catch a few years ago (not TO, got the wrong mouthy WR last night) - he had possession, and if he had not reached out to score, he wouldn’t have fumbled/the ball wouldn’t have moved.

I guess the issue is whether people believe James had possession or not - for me he did, for others obviously not. If it was elsewhere on the field it would have been a fumble for me, but as it broke the plane and I believe he had possession, that’s why I think it was a TD.

[Ryche]

The ground can't cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion either. Catch with control and get two feet or a knee in bounds, it should be a catch.

[muns]

Originally Posted by molson

Getting touched has nothing to do with whether a pass is complete or not.

And being at or near the end zone has nothing to do with whether a pass is complete or not.

All I was doing was making the point that he wasn't down.

and yes it does. If this isn't near the endzone this doesn't happen. He isn't extending his arms to pick up another yard. He is only doing it to score.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ryche

The ground can't cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion either. Catch with control and get two feet or a knee in bounds, it should be a catch.

There's definitely a lot plays that would be easier to call with a rule like that, but then if someone gets his hands on a pass, feet on the ground, but is hit and the ball flies out before he hits the ground, it would be a fumble. And there'd be a LOT of fumbles. And I think there'd be similar debates, just in different types of plays, about the timing of when the ball hits the hands, whether that counts as control (does the receiver have to have the ball in his hands for a full second, or just at all), etc.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by muns

Its controversial...

No it isn't. By the rules that clearly wasn't a catch.

Originally Posted by Rules

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

He wasn't a runner and he did not maintain control of the ball.

[larrymcg421]

My proposed rule is that if you control the ball enough to make a move like extending the ball over the goal line, then it should be a catch. The Dez Bryant thing from a couple years ago still irritates me to this day and is a ridiculously absurd thing to not call a catch.

[Atocep]

Clearly wasn't a catch. I don't even think it's very controversial and doesn't come close to cracking the top 5 "should have been a catch" calls this season.

What's controversial is the NFL's definition of a catch. It needs to be looked at this offseason because plays like that should be a catch.

[kingfc22]

Agree with most here. Not sure where the controversy is here. That is not a catch in today's NFL, plain and simple. He went to the ground and the ball moved. No catch.

Now the first down with the index card from last night on the other hand. That was all sorts of odd...

[Carman Bulldog]

Yeah, this isn't even controversial in the interpretation. It's clearly not a catch anywhere on the field if one actually looks at how the rule is defined. The player was going to the ground in the process of completing the catch and by rule must maintain possession of the ball while going to the ground. James chose to stretch out over the goal line while in the process of going to the ground when he definitely shouldn't have. Is that considered making a "football move?" Even if it is, it doesn't actually matter when you look at the rules. One needs to worry about controlling the ball first (and yes this could happen anywhere on the field such as reaching for a first down).

People complain about consistency in officiating but generally the application of this has been fairly consistent over the past 7-8 years at least.

If you don't like the rule, that's fine. But this is the way that it has been enforced since at least 2010 and nothing about the actual call on the field was controversial.

If Steelers fans want to complain that the rule itself is controversial, I guess they can get in line behind Lions fans, Cowboys fans, etc.

[Logan]

I think the play yesterday was ridiculous because I think the rule is ridiculous. I don't disagree that it was the correct interpretation of a shitty rule.

And FWIW, when I saw them reviewing it, I thought they were trying to see if someone touched James as his knee was hitting down but before he reached and extended the ball. I watched the replays and thought "nah, he missed him.". At that point I was half paying attention, saw it was overturned and thought "wow, guess they have to hurry up and get moving from the 6 inch line" or whatever.

My mind was completely blown when the ball went all the way back.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Ryche

The ground can't cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion either. Catch with control and get two feet or a knee in bounds, it should be a catch.

FYI the ground can cause a fumble. If a runner falls to the ground (NFL) without being touched and the ball comes out...it's a fumble.

Also if a runner goes to the ground (touched or untouched) and the ball is the first thing to hit prior to any body part, and the ball comes out, it is a fumble.

[Scarecrow]

So which of these is a Touchdown...

KC Chiefs Non-Touchdown

Pittsburgh Steelers Non-Touchdown

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Rams are making that pass the torch sort of statement today.

Seattle will have the most interesting offseason decisions of any team this year. If you consider their pending free agents and those that will be looking for an extension along with the fact that Chancellor and Avril's careers may be over and Sherman will be 30 coming off an Achilles the smart play may be to blow things up. However, they spent a lot of draft capital to bring in Duane Brown and Richardson so they may be forced to go for it one more year.

The door is open for the Rams to take control of the division and if Garoppolo is the player he appears to be the 49ers may be their primary competition.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Seattle will have the most interesting offseason decisions of any team this year. If you consider their pending free agents and those that will be looking for an extension along with the fact that Chancellor and Avril's careers may be over and Sherman will be 30 coming off an Achilles the smart play may be to blow things up. However, they spent a lot of draft capital to bring in Duane Brown and Richardson so they may be forced to go for it one more year.

The door is open for the Rams to take control of the division and if Garoppolo is the player he appears to be the 49ers may be their primary competition.

The whole NFC West is weird. I'm not very familiar with the particulars on the team, but Arizona is not that far removed from being a very good team and has shown some flashes throughout the season. If they hadn't had their injury woes this year, one wonders how well they would have done.

The 49ers are an offensive line, a WR, and a few defensive upgrades away from being a scary team.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Seattle will have the most interesting offseason decisions of any team this year. If you consider their pending free agents and those that will be looking for an extension along with the fact that Chancellor and Avril's careers may be over and Sherman will be 30 coming off an Achilles the smart play may be to blow things up. However, they spent a lot of draft capital to bring in Duane Brown and Richardson so they may be forced to go for it one more year.

The door is open for the Rams to take control of the division and if Garoppolo is the player he appears to be the 49ers may be their primary competition.

yes suddenly I'm not happy my beloved Cards are in this division, especially if they continue their infatuation with Carson Palmer. Could definitely see them in last place next season.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

FYI the ground can cause a fumble. If a runner falls to the ground (NFL) without being touched and the ball comes out...it's a fumble.

Also if a runner goes to the ground (touched or untouched) and the ball is the first thing to hit prior to any body part, and the ball comes out, it is a fumble.

There was an example of this in the Seahawk - Rams matchup, Wilson put the ball on the ground to brace himself and it just stayed there.

[stevew]

Jimmy G obviously gets the exclusive franchise tag, right?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by stevew

Jimmy G obviously gets the exclusive franchise tag, right?

If you are the 49ers, he's your guy going forward. I'd try hard to just get a mega-extension done in the offseason. You are going to give it to him eventually; may as well lock it in now and start your cap planning around it.

[stevew]

Someone(the Skins, the Jets, the Bills?) might be foolish enough to do 2#1s on a mega offer for him which is why he gets the exclusive tag.

Jimmy G gonna get paid.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you are the 49ers, he's your guy going forward. I'd try hard to just get a mega-extension done in the offseason. You are going to give it to him eventually; may as well lock it in now and start your cap planning around it.

This. There is almost no upside in waiting until next year. Just get the 7 year, $140 million dollar done. Remember that the franchise has just gone through 3 coaches in 5 years and had a reputation as a crappy organization. Get this done with Jimmy, draft well and you’re set up to be a competitor for the next decade if he stays healthy.

[stevew]

How much are the Panthers going to sell for? I'd guess 1.8-2.3 depending on whether the stadium is included. No idea about it.

Also, I feel like The Bengals are going to hire Jeff Fisher.

[tucker rocky]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

So which of these is a Touchdown...

KC Chiefs Non-Touchdown

Pittsburgh Steelers Non-Touchdown

Gene Steratore needs to confirm with index card.

[tucker rocky]

kareem hunt.jpg
jesse james.jpg
steratore.jpg
index card.jpg

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by SlyBelle1

- The play before Ben's interception, why run a crossing route that keeps them likely in bounds? Throw to the endzone...worse case, you still get the FG.

If they are running that play it is okay but the HAVE to call two plays at that time so they have the next play ready to go in case they don't get in. God knows they had plenty of time to prepare for worst case scenario during the replay.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

So which of these is a Touchdown...

KC Chiefs Non-Touchdown

Pittsburgh Steelers Non-Touchdown

Not the Steelers but can't tell on the Chiefs one. Hard to tell if he had it before it hit the ground in that clip.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The 12th man has been silenced.

Rams are making that pass the torch sort of statement today.

I certainly hope so. Just thinking about Pete Carroll's Seahawks makes me sick to my stomach.

I love what has happened the Los Angeles Rams this year.
1. They don't have Jeff Fisher
2. They have a great, young genius as a coach
3. They have great QB and RB duo, a QB who can throw well and a RB who can run really well
4. They don't have Jeff Fisher
5. They have a great DL player in Donald
6. They have a good receiving corps with a completely new attitude in ex-diva Watkins
7. They don't have Jeff Fisher
8. They are the Los Angeles Rams, as they always should have been
and most importantly,
9. They made the best helmet change ever (now if they can get rid of the rest of the awful St. Louis gold from their uniforms...)

On a similar note, I love how personnel, coaching, ownership, location changes can turn a hated team to one that is now liked/loved. Great example is the Philadelphia Eagles, a team I long hated to now being one of my top 3 favorite teams. Good to change a negative to a positive as an NFL fan, just like with the Rams.

[EagleFan]

Those Rams helmets kind of suck.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by stevew

How much are the Panthers going to sell for? I'd guess 1.8-2.3 depending on whether the stadium is included. No idea about it.

Also, I feel like The Bengals are going to hire Jeff Fisher.

Obvious terrible franchise jokes aside, the Rams this year have to signal the end of Fisher's career, right?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Obvious terrible franchise jokes aside, the Rams this year have to signal the end of Fisher's career, right?

The Bears may have an opening this offseason and you can never rule the McCaskeys out of doing the dumbest thing possible.

[JPhillips]

Jeff Fisher could be the perfect stooge for Mike Brown if he's willing to do it.

[sabotai]

"You've been watching film, huh? That's cool, watch this!"

Nate Freeman on Twitter: "https://t.co/uYeBjXeMfB"

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Obvious terrible franchise jokes aside, the Rams this year have to signal the end of Fisher's career, right?

Thanks to Wentz's injury, the starting three QBs for the top NFC teams in the league (Foles, Keenum, Goff) all last played for Fisher. All sucked under Fisher.

Yea Fisher is done.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Thanks to Wentz's injury, the starting three QBs for the top NFC teams in the league (Foles, Keenum, Goff) all last played for Fisher. All sucked under Fisher.

Yea Fisher is done.

He also turned Todd Gurley into a 3.2 ypc back last year.

[QuikSand]

I play in a fairly high-stakes DFS mini-league, and had RB Freeman last night, needing a pretty big performance. That last catch got me right there, but not quite to 1st place... losing out 145.98 to 145.78. Two yards.