@legler82 , I have to hand it to you...you do have a good sense of humor. You crack me up (at times)......I have no beef with you. My main beef is with Vilma!
well since then the board went from a 2 with beer googles to an 8 without them so I think it was a good move
I do like how he changed the culture of the entire team instantly. FAs want to be here. people are excited to be a jet, and every player in the NFL speaks highly of him.
not really. it's a matter of possession vs no possession. a ball posessed stays that way. when the ground is hit the runner is down with possession prior to the ball coming out with a catch the ball isn't possessed until a football move is made or the receiver hits the ground without losing the ball. it actually makes sense
It may make sense to an NFL official, but it's not common sense, which is why they have so many issues with these rules each game. I really think they need to just simplify them. Back in the OLD, old days, when a ball carrier hit the ground and lost the football it was a fumble, regardless of whether hitting the ground was caused by a tackler, or they slipped/tripped and fell. IDK when the NFL adopted the "Ground can't cause a fumble" rule, but they should just delete it. As for the intentional spiking to stop the clock, that needs to be amended so that the QB has to actually bring the ball up and "attempt a throw" - even if said throw is into the ground at his feet. The current allowance, where the QB "shoves" the ball with two hands into the ground as soon as it hits his hands from the Center should be ruled a fumble, which it is. Determining what a legal catch is is always going to be subjective in the eyes of the ref. IDK how they can simplify or clarify that rule. It seems like whenever they try they make it more confusing. I think judging based on time, rather than having to "perform a 'football move'" would be better. A ref can say "a thousand-one" in his head and if the receiver still has the ball it's a catch. Maybe not precision like a Rolex, but close enough. I just think that NFL has made things way too complicated, not only for fans, but the players and the refs. As Thoreau famously said: "Simplify! Simplify! Simplify!".
Plus super slow-mo replays makes it look like the WR had the ball in his hands for 10 minutes before it's called an incomplete pass
but when you hit the ground you are down. most times you were contacted first. the rule only becomes dumb if someone slips and falls and loses the ball when they hit the ground untouched. but it saves all the issues of a ball carrier being slammed to the ground then fumbling which it shouldn't be a fumble
I disagree. If you hit the ground and lose the ball, it's a fumble, period. Much simpler, easier to see and call. Plus, it gets rid of the stupidity of the phrase "The ground can't cause a fumble". The ground NEVER causes a fumble - the runner's losing control of the ball is what causes the fumble.
except a runner is down by contact the second he touches the ground with anything other then a foot or hand. so as long as there was contact leading to the runner going to the ground, he can't fumble when he hits the ground because the play is done. it's like diving for the pylon. if the ball touches the pylon then is knocked out it's not a fumble because the play is officially over the second it touches it. same with QBs diving over the pile with the ball out to cross the end zone. You are basically saying the play can continue going even after it's over is certain conditions are met, which sounds way more convoluted and crazy then the ground can't cause a fumble
It may "sound more convoluted" but it isn't. In your "pylon" example, it's not the ball touching the pylon that matters, it's that the ball went across the goal line. Same thing with the QB diving over the pile - if the ball crosses the goal line it's a TD and the play is over. The rule should be that until the whistle blows ending the play, the ball is live. If the runner is tackled and in the course of falling to the ground his arm, or leg hits the ground before the rest of his body, and then when his body hits the ground the ball comes loose, if the whistle hasn't blown, the ball is live and it's a fumble. IMO. I understand that the rules currently aren't like that, but they should be changed.
look at what I underlined. it's a play ending condition. same with the player hitting the ground while having possession of the ball. It instantly ends the play. what happens after is irrelevant. That's the whole point of the rule. The play is dead when a player hits the ground hence the ground can't cause a fumble. it's for player safety. you don't want players jumping on each other after the play is over. in your example it's not a fumble. the play is dead. a shin or forearm or elbow is also considered down. it's not just a "knee" it's any part of the body that isn't the palm of the hand or foot. also once his body hits the ground he's down again. the play is done. asking the refs to whistle out obvious dead plays is a disservice to them and the players the time it takes for them to blow a whistle could give a team possession that didn't deserve causing a replay and possible injury. extending out dead plays only results in more injuries. especially when a loose ball is out there. I know the rule sounds dumb but logically it makes a lot of sense. and if the wording bothers you they could change it to the ground means play is dead and nothing after matters which is a rule but it's not as catchy as the ground can't cause a fumble and it's longer and more convoluted. Have you read the actual rulebook? it's a convoluted over worded pile of crap to state obvious things. we don't need it being worse then it is by changing rules that are fine
Well I'm not going to keep chewing on this bone. There's no point to it. I understand what the rule IS I just don't like it. Too bad for me. I fully agree with the bold part, but I'm not sure that some rules shouldn't be changed to make them simpler and more straightforward, but I'm not volunteering for that job!
i mean it seems you don't like the wording but i'm still missing what you don't like about the rule? a runner is down by contact at that point. so do you not like that they can't fumble if the fall over and drop the ball untouched (almost never happens in the NFL) or do you not like the down by contact rule in itself? it seems your issue is the down by contact rule not the ground can't cause a fumble rule. you are basically saying when a runner is down by contact they need to maintain possession through the tackle or it's a fumble. So what i'm getting at is it seems your issue is really the down by contact rule? which was my point I was making. unless i'm misreading something. because getting rid of the ground can't cause a fumble rule doesn't make your example work as long as the down by contact rule exists
