The Calvin Johnson Incompletion

[FirstTimer]

Garbo.

Sometimes, we just need common sense. He made the catch.

What about when they spike the ball? How far do you take it? He had the ball in his hands for like 4 seconds.

What about Bert Emmanual rule? So now, the ball can hit the ground and be a catch, but if you let the ball go after you clearly make a catch, it doesnt count? How is that fair or consistant?

Rule needs to be tweaked. Needs to be a judgement call. Any reasonable person thought that was a catch. Let players decide games, not silly rule interpretation loopholes.

This.

They need to add an addendum to all NFL rules.

"Yeah theses are the rules, but if logically something makes sense, then it fucking overrides this shit."

Tuck rule, this shit, whatever.

Just fucking get it right, isn't that point of adding things like replay challenges? To get it right? Clearly the issue is defining how to decide what's right.

Doesn't really apply to this rule though as there was no "interpretation" to really be had. It was called correctly according to the letter of the rule. It was pretty cut and dried.

 

[Buzzman]

Thats the thing that annoys me most was if this happen at say the 25 yard line, they would rule that a fumble, but because ti was in the endzone it was an incompletion.

 

[killgod]

Doesn't really apply to this rule though as there was no "interpretation" to really be had. It was called correctly according to the letter of the rule. It was pretty cut and dried.

The rules are wrong. :dealwithit:

 

[FirstTimer]

Thats the thing that annoys me most was if this happen at say the 25 yard line, they would rule that a fumble, but because ti was in the endzone it was an incompletion.

You don't know that..and according to the rule...it wouldn't be.

The rules are wrong. :dealwithit:

Ok. Glad you feel that way I guess?

But the refs didn't have to "interpret" anything. It was a cut and dry call. That was my point.

 

[killgod]

Ok. Glad you feel that way I guess?

But the refs didn't have to "interpret" anything. It was a cut and dry call. That was my point.

Refs didn't do anything wrong, never said they did.

Rule is still wrong. What happened there should count as a TD.

 

[FirstTimer]

Refs didn't do anything wrong, never said they did.

Rule is still wrong. What happened there should count as a TD.

I guess?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Thats the thing that annoys me most was if this happen at say the 25 yard line, they would rule that a fumble, but because ti was in the endzone it was an incompletion.

Wouldnt have even been a fumble, he'd have been ruled down by contact.

Rule is severly flawed.

 

[Buzzman]

You don't know that..and according to the rule...it wouldn't be.



Ok. Glad you feel that way I guess?

But the refs didn't have to "interpret" anything. It was a cut and dry call. That was my point.

you see that happen all the time and its ruled a fumble.

 

[killgod]

I guess?

You guess?

Either you agree or you don't, stop letting NFL rules dictate your brain and decide what the fuck you think it was.

 

[FirstTimer]

you see that happen all the time and its ruled a fumble.

Such as?

 

[FirstTimer]

You guess?

Either you agree or you don't, stop letting NFL rules dictate your brain and decide what the fuck you think it was.

Read the first page of the thread ass clown.

Post #12

 

[killgod]

Read the first page off the thread ass clown.

Typing out those 9 words was easier than answering the 1 word I was looking for with that question? Cuntrag.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Doesn't really apply to this rule though as there was no "interpretation" to really be had. It was called correctly according to the letter of the rule. It was pretty cut and dried.

There was interpretation, they ruled there was no "second act", or "football move" before he let go of the ball.

This is where I disagree.

 

[FirstTimer]

Typing out those 9 words was easier than answering the 1 word I was looking for with that question? Cuntrag.

Didn't think I'd actually have to repeat myself.

 

[killgod]

Didn't think I'd actually have to repeat myself.

Well I don't live and breathe for your every post.

 

[FirstTimer]

There was interpretation, they ruled there was no "second act", or "football move" before he let go of the ball.

This is where I disagree.

There could be no second move. He rolled over the ball hit the ground and left his hand.

What was he going to do?

"Fight for more yards?"

:smug:

 

[FirstTimer]

Well I don't live and breathe for your every post.

Wasn't asking you to live and breathe for my every post.

Just one of them.

In the same thread.

 

[killgod]

Wasn't asking you to live and breathe for my every post.

Just one of them.

In the same thread.

It's on another page.

Therefore not current to my participation in the conversation.

Didn't realize.

You are incapable of sharing your opinion multiple times.

When you are asked "How are you" for the 2nd time in a day, what do you normally say?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I gotta be honest, I still have no idea how that is NOT a touchdown. To me, it seemed like he was putting the ball on the ground after the catch was complete and was getting up to celebrate.

Awkward call and even worse rationale to overturn it by the refs (including the stooge that was questioned).

 

[FirstTimer]

You are incapable of sharing your opinion multiple times.

You're an ass clown.

That's twice.