- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:25 pm to lsupride87
So again, no football move, now possession through the ground, no catch, many tears.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:26 pm to LNCHBOX
You are missing the part that is is extremely debatable whether or not he extended the ball, which is a football move
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:26 pm to LNCHBOX
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/15 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:26 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
If he had possession according to the rules, how could that call possibly be overturned?
Because "possession" doesn't mean what you think it means. Possession is the determination of whether or not a player has control of the ball at a particular point in time. It says nothing about whether or not a player has completed the act of the catch.
Dez Bryant had possession the second he secured the ball in both hands at the peak of his jump, and maintained possession all the way until he hit the ground and the ball moved. The thing is, he made a football move prior to that while he possessed the ball.
That's a catch per the rule book. The ref said he didn't believe Bryant intended to make a football move and thus ignored it.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:27 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
At least you now admit Lnch that you had the rule wrong yourself at first 
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:28 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
What am I missing?
The fact that he DID make a football move by extending the ball towards the goal line.
However, lets not lose sight of the fact that you had no clue how the rules worked two pages ago. Most of this information is clearly new to you.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:28 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
If he had possession according to the rules, how could that call possibly be overturned?
The ref believed the lunge towards the endzone wasn't a football move.
It seems like you are trying to turn your side of the argument into a "I was just trolling the whole time." You are better than that.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:29 pm to lsupride87
No, you mustinterpreted what I said just like you misinterpreted the spelling of my name.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:29 pm to Roger Klarvin
Roger it is debatable whether or not he extended the ball on purpose. I think he did, but at least that is debatable. And at least he actually knows the rule now
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:30 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
quote:
What am I missing?
The fact that he DID make a football move by extending the ball towards the goal line.
However, lets not lose sight of the fact that you had no clue how the rules worked two pages ago. Most of this information is clearly new to you.
That seem like a fact to me.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:30 pm to LNCHBOX
Dude you 100% spouted bullshite about the rule 1 page ago 
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:30 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
That's a catch per the rule book.
If it was, they wouldn't have overturned it. It was an obvious non catch to the guy that reviewed it.
But again, the Panthers should have been playing the Packers, not the Cowboys. I love that a controversial call goes against the Boys after last week's debacle.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:30 pm to lsupride87
The thing is, it shouldn't matter whether he did so on purpose. The refs aren't in the business of determining what is going on in a player's head.
Even if he accidently did that on his way to the ground (I find it hard to believe given how much coordination that took) the ref has no way of proving that.
Even if he accidently did that on his way to the ground (I find it hard to believe given how much coordination that took) the ref has no way of proving that.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:31 pm to lsupride87
Where? The only rule I've said is that possession must be maintained through the ground if the ball touches the ground. That is a fact. 100%
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:33 pm to Roger Klarvin
Agreed. There is no possible way anyone can say 100% Dez didn't extend on purpose. I have no clue how the ref thinks he knows that
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:33 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:dude this is 100% false. You still don't know the rule
Where? The only rule I've said is that possession must be maintained through the ground if the ball touches the ground. That is a fact. 100%
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:34 pm to JG77056
quote:
If it was, they wouldn't have overturned it.
Well shite, that settles it.
Are you serious with this shite? You think the NFL has never come out and said an overturned call was incorrect? Because it happened twice this year alone.
quote:
It was an obvious non catch to the guy that reviewed it.
Because he determined Dez didn't make a football move, a decision which he refuses to publically explain for reasons I suspect involve his inability to give any explanation other than "I didn't think he intended to do it".
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:35 pm to JG77056
quote:
If it was, they wouldn't have overturned it.
Have you ever watched an NFL game before?
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:35 pm to lsupride87
Show me one play where a receiver doesn't control the ball through the ground that's a catch.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News