Official 2010-11 NFL Thread

[jenksycat]

Yes, we dominated on offense. It did not mean a lot today, but it shows that the offense is capable of moving the ball, and if they take care of it a little better, they will score points.

 

We barely scratched 19 points against...the lions. The Detroit lions. The 0-21 on the road Detroit Lions. And "won" because of a stupid rule and a injury to their QB. We had the ball 6 inches away from the endzone and could not score against the Detroit Lions

 

This team is going to be brutal against real opponents, don't be fooled.

[chw42]

We barely scratched 19 points against...the lions. The Detroit lions. The 0-21 on the road Detroit Lions. And "won" because of a stupid rule and a injury to their QB. We had the ball 6 inches away from the endzone and could not score against the Detroit Lions

 

This team is going to be brutal against real opponents, don't be fooled.

 

Take 3 of those turnovers away and they score at least 29 points instead of 19.

 

[MHizzle85]

As a Cowboys fan, tonight's game left me speechless.

 

Alex Barron should be left in DC. I'm just hoping this o-line gets it's s*** together.

[jenksycat]

Take 3 of those turnovers away and they score at least 29 points instead of 19.

 

Or they get shutdown in the redzone like they did when the ball was on the 99.9 yard line. For whatever reason, the Bears in the redzone are like the Sox against Minny: they can't get it done.

 

I'm honestly more confident in the Bears offense from 30-40 out than

Edited September 13, 2010 by Jenksy Cat

[SoxAce]

Take 3 of those turnovers away and they score at least 29 points instead of 19.

 

Hell Aromashodu cost the Bears 9 points himself.

[Balta1701]

Overall I think everyone would admit that at some level, the Bears performance was a mixed bag. Lots of reasons to be negative, but just as many for optimism.

 

They moved the ball well the whole game, but they moved it against the Lions. But, it was also a better Lions D than they've seen recently.

 

The defense shut everyone down, but they shut down the Lions.

 

The Lions moved the ball, but it was against the prevent defense only.

 

The Bears moved the ball, but they couldn't hold onto it and had enough blown plays and TO's to hand the other team the win.

 

They got themselves in position to make plays but failed to do so.

 

Like it or not...where they go from here is going to depend on how the coaching staff reacts to this game. If this game is Forte's last 2 fumbles of the season and DA spends the week looking over video of how those balls bounced off his hands while he was wide open...they've got a shot. They spend the week ignoring those problems and letting them fester...and they're in trouble.

[Steve9347]

I don't like to say that athletes are role models but Wes Welker is an amazing human being. Dude worked his ass off to get back into the game and on his first play back he gets a five yard catch and scores two touchdowns.

Two touchdowns on one play is quite a feat.

[Balta1701]

Jimmy Clausen might wind up being the starter in Carolina next weekend. Moore went down with a serious enough concussion that they took him to the hospital.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Totally. 463 offensive yards is nothing.

FOr the sake of argument, let's factor out the 89 yard play. that's still 374. And, 4 of the drives ended in turnovers. Could have been a LOT more.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Referee explains why apparent Lions' TD nullified

As I thought about it more last night. Here's what I came up with:

• The rule is dumb. It was obvious to everyone he clearly had possession.
• Given the rule as it stands, the ruling was right.
• You cant "prove" he had possession of the ball with his one hand. His hand and the ball could have been falling at the same rate, therefore not a completed catch

 

In summery, right call, DUMB rule

[Balta1701]

As I thought about it more last night. Here's what I came up with:

• The rule is dumb. It was obvious to everyone he clearly had possession.
• Given the rule as it stands, the ruling was right.
• You cant "prove" he had possession of the ball with his one hand. His hand and the ball could have been falling at the same rate, therefore not a completed catch

 

In summery, right call, DUMB rule

I really disagree that it's a dumb rule...I think 95% of the times I can think of that the rule has been applied it's probably prevented things that I think weren't touchdowns. If a guy goes up for the ball, gets control of the ball, comes down hard, and the ball comes out because he hits the ground, i don't think of that as a catch in the field of play and I don't think of that as a touchdown in the end zone.

 

The only thing that was different in this case is that the ball came out because Johnson carelessly let it out of his hands rather than having it jarred out of his hands, but nonetheless...I think you should have to hold onto the ball through the whole catch process for it to be a catch.

 

If Johnson had done exactly that same thing on a catch in the middle of the field, it would probably have been ruled incomplete

[ChWRoCk2]

I really disagree that it's a dumb rule...I think 95% of the times I can think of that the rule has been applied it's probably prevented things that I think weren't touchdowns. If a guy goes up for the ball, gets control of the ball, comes down hard, and the ball comes out because he hits the ground, i don't think of that as a catch in the field of play and I don't think of that as a touchdown in the end zone.

 

The only thing that was different in this case is that the ball came out because Johnson carelessly let it out of his hands rather than having it jarred out of his hands, but nonetheless...I think you should have to hold onto the ball through the whole catch process for it to be a catch.

 

If Johnson had done exactly that same thing on a catch in the middle of the field, it would probably have been ruled incomplete

The rule kind of conflicts with other rules too, I like what the announcers said at the end that it is just like a guy crossing the plain and losing the ball. An RB dives in and the ball crosses the plain but he loses the ball, technically a TD but now I'm not so sure.

 

On a side note, they should have never gotten rid of the force out rule.

[Balta1701]

The rule kind of conflicts with other rules too, I like what the announcers said at the end that it is just like a guy crossing the plain and losing the ball. An RB dives in and the ball crosses the plain but he loses the ball, technically a TD but now I'm not so sure.

 

On a side note, they should have never gotten rid of the force out rule.

The difference for the RB crossing the plane and fumbling is that the running back would already have firmly established possession before fumbling the ball.

 

If a receiver goes up outside of the end zone and does exactly what Johnson does; catches the ball but goes to the ground and loses the football on the ground by extending his arm/showboating a bit too much, they're not going to call it a catch and I don't think they should. If you go up for the ball you need to keep it in your control the whole way through your landing for it to be a catch. Being in the end zone shouldn't save you.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Here's your history lesson of the day:

CNN.com - How NFL teams got their nickname

Edited September 13, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[StrangeSox]

The difference for the RB crossing the plane and fumbling is that the running back would already have firmly established possession before fumbling the ball.

 

Exactly.

 

If a receiver goes up outside of the end zone and does exactly what Johnson does; catches the ball but goes to the ground and loses the football on the ground by extending his arm/showboating a bit too much, they're not going to call it a catch and I don't think they should. If you go up for the ball you need to keep it in your control the whole way through your landing for it to be a catch. Being in the end zone shouldn't save you.

 

Right.

 

It seems like the rule was made to remove as much subjectivity from the call as possible. Either you control the ball all the way through, or you don't.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The difference for the RB crossing the plane and fumbling is that the running back would already have firmly established possession before fumbling the ball.

 

If a receiver goes up outside of the end zone and does exactly what Johnson does; catches the ball but goes to the ground and loses the football on the ground by extending his arm/showboating a bit too much, they're not going to call it a catch and I don't think they should. If you go up for the ball you need to keep it in your control the whole way through your landing for it to be a catch. Being in the end zone shouldn't save you.

very well said.

[ChWRoCk2]

The difference for the RB crossing the plane and fumbling is that the running back would already have firmly established possession before fumbling the ball.

 

If a receiver goes up outside of the end zone and does exactly what Johnson does; catches the ball but goes to the ground and loses the football on the ground by extending his arm/showboating a bit too much, they're not going to call it a catch and I don't think they should. If you go up for the ball you need to keep it in your control the whole way through your landing for it to be a catch. Being in the end zone shouldn't save you.

If he didn't have possession when he initially caught it but fell to the ground while regaining possession towards the end and then the ball comes loose once he hits the ground, yes I agree it is not a catch. I'm arguing he had possession from the very beginning, clearly had the ball in both hands with two feet, I mean heck, he even had possession with 1 hand till he let it go when going to celebrate. Idk if he made a football move but 2 feet and possession should be enough imo.

 

To me rules need to be consistent across the whole field of play and the end zone shouldn't be an exception. I feel that had this same play happened on the 20 yard line (lets say) it would be a catch because the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

Whatever, all that matters is GB won and should have a cakewalk next week vs. the Bills.

Edited September 13, 2010 by ChWRoCk2

[ZoomSlowik]

If he didn't have possession when he initially caught it but fell to the ground while regaining possession towards the end and then the ball comes loose once he hits the ground, yes I agree it is not a catch. I'm arguing he had possession from the very beginning, clearly had the ball in both hands with two feet, I mean heck, he even had possession with 1 hand till he let it go when going to celebrate. Idk if he made a football move but 2 feet and possession should be enough imo.

 

To me rules need to be consistent across the whole field of play and the end zone shouldn't be an exception. I feel that had this same play happened on the 20 yard line (lets say) it would be a catch because the ground can't cause a fumble.Whatever, all that matters is GB won and should have a cakewalk next week vs. the Bills.

 

The ground isn't causing a fumble, it's causing an incomplete pass, which absolutely can happen.

 

 

[Balta1701]

If he didn't have possession when he initially caught it but fell to the ground while regaining possession towards the end and then the ball comes loose once he hits the ground, yes I agree it is not a catch. I'm arguing he had possession from the very beginning, clearly had the ball in both hands with two feet, I mean heck, he even had possession with 1 hand till he let it go when going to celebrate. Idk if he made a football move but 2 feet and possession should be enough imo.

 

To me rules need to be consistent across the whole field of play and the end zone shouldn't be an exception. I feel that had this same play happened on the 20 yard line (lets say) it would be a catch because the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

Whatever, all that matters is GB won and should have a cakewalk next week vs. the Bills.

It wasn't a fumble that the ground caused, it was an incompletion.

 

Here's my counter-example...let's say the same play happens on the 20 yard line...It's a 3rd and 25 from the 45 yard line, Johnson goes up, gets the ball, gets bumped on the way up, goes down backwards, and as he's going down he shifts his body position to try to stretch his arm out for the first down, and while he's stretching his arm out, the ball hits the ground and pops out. He's had possession the whole way down but the first legitimate movement he's made after the catch winds up jarring the ball loose. What do we call that?

 

I think it' gets called an incompletion. The only difference here is that he might have been trying to spike it instead of trying to stretch out.

[Steve9347]

The ground isn't causing a fumble, it's causing an incomplete pass, which absolutely can happen.

win.

[kitekrazy]

Well I'm happy the Colts lost. No more crap of trying to jerk around with going 16-0. That's the best thing that happened to them.

[nitetrain8601]

very well said.

 

This is my argument as well. It was 2 feet, hands firmly around ball, on the knees, then his turnaround to celebrate caused the fumble.

 

If he didn't have possession when he initially caught it but fell to the ground while regaining possession towards the end and then the ball comes loose once he hits the ground, yes I agree it is not a catch. I'm arguing he had possession from the very beginning, clearly had the ball in both hands with two feet, I mean heck, he even had possession with 1 hand till he let it go when going to celebrate. Idk if he made a football move but 2 feet and possession should be enough imo.

 

To me rules need to be consistent across the whole field of play and the end zone shouldn't be an exception. I feel that had this same play happened on the 20 yard line (lets say) it would be a catch because the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

Whatever, all that matters is GB won and should have a cakewalk next week vs. the Bills.

 

[The Critic]

The thing I love about fans is, if the exact same play caused the Bears to lose we'd have impassioned explanations about why the call was complete and total bulls***.

[chw42]

As I thought about it more last night. Here's what I came up with:

• The rule is dumb. It was obvious to everyone he clearly had possession.
• Given the rule as it stands, the ruling was right.
• You cant "prove" he had possession of the ball with his one hand. His hand and the ball could have been falling at the same rate, therefore not a completed catch

 

In summery, right call, DUMB rule

 

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense actually.

 

I came up with an analogous play. Say a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, falls to the ground and as he's making contact with the ground, the ball pops out, that's not a catch. I think in one way or another, the play yesterday is somewhat similar to that.

[iamshack]

It wasn't a fumble that the ground caused, it was an incompletion.

 

Here's my counter-example...let's say the same play happens on the 20 yard line...It's a 3rd and 25 from the 45 yard line, Johnson goes up, gets the ball, gets bumped on the way up, goes down backwards, and as he's going down he shifts his body position to try to stretch his arm out for the first down, and while he's stretching his arm out, the ball hits the ground and pops out. He's had possession the whole way down but the first legitimate movement he's made after the catch winds up jarring the ball loose. What do we call that?

 

I think it' gets called an incompletion. The only difference here is that he might have been trying to spike it instead of trying to stretch out.

My issue with the rule is that it creates a standard or minimum threshold for possession which does not exist (and rightfully so) in other instances, such as catching a pass and then going out of bounds. At least not to my knowledge.

 

Say Johnson would have caught that ball, gotten two feet in bounds in the end zone, ball was not moving in his hands, and then his momentum carried him out of bounds, rather than falling down in the end zone. There is no "process" involved in making certain he holds on to the ball after leaving the field of play. What if Johnson catches the ball in bounds, then drops it 3 steps after he is runs out of bounds? Is there a process to make sure he possesses the ball until he stops running? No.

 

Say the quarterback hands the ball off to Johnson on an end around, and Johnson gets tackled, and when he hits the ground, the ball squirts out of his hand. Is this a fumble? No. The ground cannot cause a fumble.

 

It just seems as though in seeking to articulate a rule for this scenario, they have created one in which suddenly the threshold for possession is so high that when juxtaposed against other thresholds for possession, it appears foolish and inconsistent.