- 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
2
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:37 pm to lsupride87
Go for it.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:37 pm to lsupride87
If a football move is made the ball and then hit the ground and fly to the moon and it is still a catch. How you don't understand this is mind numbing
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:38 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Have you ever watched an NFL game before?
Lots of them. Even covered them for newspapers.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:38 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
Perhaps extending the football intentionally is a football move and that can be supported by rule and precedent.
What is the definition of a football move? Maybe intent has to be established first, ie a player must intentionally extend the football for it be considered a football move. Because that intent couldn't be established, it can't be considered a football move. They're not making a subjective judgment call, they're saying they couldn't make a subjective judgment call on intent in order to establish it as a football move.
I'm not trolling, just offering a logical out. I don't fricking know. I'd like to see the rule or an explanation as to how i'm wrong.
What is the definition of a football move? Maybe intent has to be established first, ie a player must intentionally extend the football for it be considered a football move. Because that intent couldn't be established, it can't be considered a football move. They're not making a subjective judgment call, they're saying they couldn't make a subjective judgment call on intent in order to establish it as a football move.
I'm not trolling, just offering a logical out. I don't fricking know. I'd like to see the rule or an explanation as to how i'm wrong.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:40 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Show me one play where a receiver doesn't control the ball through the ground that's a catch.
Ball is possessed, a football move is made as the player is going to the ground and then as he rolls on the ground the ball is knocked out by the defender and hits the ground. Ruled a catch specifically due to the football move being made prior to the ball contacting the ground.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:40 pm to lsupride87
But Dez didn't make a football move. According to the ref. You're saying the refs can't judge what his intent was, but you're actually wanting the ref to judge it and say it's a football move. So you only want the refs using their judgment when it's convenient for you.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:40 pm to genro
Genro you are right. But to overturn the call the ref has to be 100% certain the extension was accidental
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:41 pm to lsupride87
That is nothing like this. He clearly has both hands around the ball and breaks the plane with the ball never touching the ground 
Got anything better?
Got anything better? 
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:41 pm to JG77056
No, he wants the ref to be 100% certain to overturn.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:41 pm to Roger Klarvin
In that gif I can say with certainty that he intented to extend the ball
If you can't say that with certainty, you can't call it a football move. Intent comes first and must be indisputable.
Again just spitballing
If you can't say that with certainty, you can't call it a football move. Intent comes first and must be indisputable.
Again just spitballing
This post was edited on 1/11/15 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:41 pm to LNCHBOX
But he drops the ball before completing the catch. According to you incomplete
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:42 pm to genro
quote:
What is the definition of a football move? Maybe intent has to be established first, ie a player must intentionally extend the football for it be considered a football move. Because that intent couldn't be established, it can't be considered a football move. They're not making a subjective judgment call, they're saying they couldn't make a subjective judgment call on intent in order to establish it as a football move.
The problem is it was ruled a catch on the field, meaning they would need conclusive evidence that he did not intend to extend the ball. I have no clue how one would do that.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:42 pm to lsupride87
Lnch you are still wrong on the rule. You may get it one day. Even the ref today told you that you are wrong
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:43 pm to lsupride87
He scores, the play is dead. Not the case for Dez. He had to do more. Sorry this hurts your brain so much.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:44 pm to LNCHBOX
Oh so the scoring matters eh? Now explain Calvin Johnson then. It is amazing now you have made two rules up
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:44 pm to JG77056
quote:
But Dez didn't make a football move. According to the ref.
And I'm asking why the ref believed he could judge that.
quote:
You're saying the refs can't judge what his intent was, but you're actually wanting the ref to judge it and say it's a football move. So you only want the refs using their judgment when it's convenient for you.
This would be true IF the call on the field was incomplete. The call was a catch however, meaning that there has to be conclusive evidence that it WASNT a football move.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:44 pm to lsupride87
You didn't show me anything that doesn't jive with what I said the rule is. Sorry.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 11:44 pm to lsupride87
quote:
No, he wants the ref to be 100% certain to overturn.
That changes week to week with Cowboy fans doesn't it?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News