NFL 2009 Season Week 15 Picks

Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

These are not our most current picks!
Our freshest batch of picks are the NFL 2019 Season Week 12 Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Colts 35 @ Jaguars 31
Final
Thu, 12/17/09 7:20pm
16 Picks - 80% 4 Picks - 20%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Jaguars
Jaguars
Colts
Colts
Cowboys 24 @ Saints 17
Final
Sat, 12/19/09 7:20pm
3 Picks - 14% 19 Picks - 86%
Saints
Saints
Cowboys
Cowboys
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Bears 7 @ Ravens 31
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
1 Pick - 5% 21 Picks - 95%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Packers 36 @ Steelers 37
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
15 Picks - 68% 7 Picks - 32%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
49ers 13 @ Eagles 27
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
2 Picks - 9% 20 Picks - 91%
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Falcons 10 @ Jets 7
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
9 Picks - 41% 13 Picks - 59%
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Texans 16 @ Rams 13
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
22 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Browns 41 @ Chiefs 34
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
4 Picks - 18% 18 Picks - 82%
Chiefs
Chiefs
Browns
Browns
Chiefs
Chiefs
Browns
Browns
Dolphins 24 @ Titans 27
final overtime
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
4 Picks - 18% 18 Picks - 82%
Titans
Titans
Dolphins
Dolphins
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Cardinals 31 @ Lions 24
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
22 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Patriots 17 @ Bills 10
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 12:00pm
22 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Bengals 24 @ Chargers 27
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 3:05pm
6 Picks - 27% 16 Picks - 73%
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Bengals
Bengals
Raiders 20 @ Broncos 19
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 3:05pm
0 Picks - 0% 22 Picks - 100%
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Buccaneers 24 @ Seahawks 7
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 3:15pm
2 Picks - 9% 20 Picks - 91%
Seahawks
Seahawks
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Vikings 7 @ Panthers 26
Final
Sun, 12/20/09 7:20pm
22 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Giants 45 @ Redskins 12
Final
Mon, 12/21/09 7:30pm
17 Picks - 77% 5 Picks - 23%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Redskins
Redskins
Week Record10 - 6
0.625
12 - 4
0.750
First Place
8 - 8
0.500
Worst Place
8 - 8
0.500
Worst Place
Season Record145 - 79
0.647
147 - 77
0.656
143 - 81
0.638
152 - 72
0.679
Scotttime Record647 - 377
0.632
629 - 395
0.614
638 - 386
0.623
649 - 375
0.634
No-Pack-Vike Record2607 - 1527
0.631
2535 - 1599
0.613
2620 - 1514
0.634
2585 - 1549
0.625
Lifetime Record1324 - 767
0.633
1240 - 851
0.593
1308 - 783
0.625
1308 - 783
0.625
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Redskins

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:154 - 70
0.688
Lifetime:659 - 365
0.644
newalex.jpg
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Redskins

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:143 - 80
0.641
Lifetime:630 - 392
0.616
images.jpg
Jaguars
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:130 - 79
0.622
Lifetime:613 - 391
0.611
vignette.bmp
IND @ JAC - No Pick
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Bengals
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:7 - 8
0.467
Season:105 - 59
0.640
Lifetime:427 - 254
0.627
flower .jpg
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Dolphins
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Redskins

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:132 - 74
0.641
Lifetime:443 - 294
0.601
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
49ers
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Buccaneers
Vikings
Giants

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:147 - 77
0.656
Lifetime:433 - 260
0.625
070809_romo2_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
Colts
Cowboys
Ravens
Steelers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Bengals
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:130 - 63
0.674
Lifetime:391 - 211
0.649
me.png
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:141 - 82
0.632
Lifetime:228 - 153
0.598
picture07.bmp
Jaguars
Cowboys
Ravens
Steelers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Bengals
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:138 - 82
0.627
Lifetime:300 - 162
0.649
blonde_gleam.gif
IND @ JAC - No Pick
Saints
Ravens
Steelers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:9 - 6
0.600
Season:149 - 72
0.674
Lifetime:280 - 143
0.662
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Steelers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:149 - 74
0.668
Lifetime:149 - 74
0.668
question_mark.gif
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Dolphins
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:130 - 69
0.653
Lifetime:130 - 69
0.653
question_mark.gif
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Steelers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Bengals
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:103 - 67
0.606
Lifetime:103 - 67
0.606
question_mark.gif
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Browns
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Redskins

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:131 - 60
0.686
Lifetime:131 - 60
0.686
question_mark.gif
Jaguars
Saints
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:92 - 56
0.622
Lifetime:92 - 56
0.622
bill2.jpg
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Jets
Texans
Chiefs
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:86 - 51
0.628
Lifetime:86 - 51
0.628
Me at work.JPG
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
49ers
Jets
Texans
Browns
Titans
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:27 - 23
0.540
Lifetime:27 - 23
0.540
question_mark.gif
Colts
Saints
Ravens
Packers
Eagles
Falcons
Texans
Chiefs
Dolphins
Cardinals
Patriots
Bengals
Broncos
Seahawks
Vikings
Giants

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:21 - 11
0.656
Lifetime:21 - 11
0.656
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Colts 35 @ Jaguars 31

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
I'm not so sure an upset here would be all that shocking.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
A Thursday night game and a Saturday game? My cup runneth over. The Jags are going to be a very tough challenge for the Colts, and I wouldn't be completely surprised if they lost this one.
jon.jpg
Jon
Jacksonville is good enough to beat Indianapolis. Will we get the Colts at 80%?

Cowboys 24 @ Saints 17

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
If the Saints have a loss in them, and seeing as they've been on the verge of losing basically every game lately, they might, this is supposedly going to have to be it. Unfortunately I think the Cowboys are only a "good" team because everyone insists they should be.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Need to get my X-mas shopping done/started and the only time to do that is Saturday morning and afternoon so we can watch this game. Not looking forward to that at all. Anybody have any great gift ideas? BTW, I love it when the Cowboys collapse.
matt.jpg
Matt
Just because they put it on Saturday, doesn't make it any different. I abstain.
jon.jpg
Jon
New Orleans seems like they should lose any time now, but who knows what Dallas is going to play like?

Packers 36 @ Steelers 37

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The Steelers have lost their last 5 games, and their last 4 are to teams that are a combined 12-36 outside of those games. They aren't great, but they still have a team that can give their opponents trouble. I feel like the Packers are due a loss, unless Hines Ward doesn't play, which is safe to assume he won't.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Yancy Thigpen dropped the ball!
jon.jpg
Jon
Green Bay has quite the streak going.

Vikings 7 @ Panthers 26

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The Bengals game was supposedly a statement, and I know the Vikings beat the AFC's (supposedly the better conference) #2 seed by 20, but I don't really feel all that great about it. Is it strange that in a game where they ended up putting up 30 points on the #4 defense, with their rookie phenom on the sidelines, still felt like they struggled offensively? Was that just me? Are expectations too high?

On the bright side, the defense was spectacular. Not tons of sacks, but lots of pressure, and blanket coverage. Carson Palmer threw for just 94 yards, his 3rd lowest ever, and the Bengals got 210 total, a season low. The Moral? Watchout, whoever is QB for the Panthers, which is safe to assume will be Delhomme.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
The Panthers are just going to lose another game. Bill Belichek is an ass.
matt.jpg
Matt
A-Pete is going for 200 yds.
jon.jpg
Jon
Are you ready for Christmas?

Giants 45 @ Redskins 12

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
A national NFC East game? Shocking.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
The Giants are sure to be favorites, but this is a huge game for the Redskins, we'll see if they have enough to pull this one out.
matt.jpg
Matt
I could see this game going either way.
jon.jpg
Jon
Everyone is talking about Washington's new coach and a coaching search, and I had to wonder, "Did Jim Zorn get fired?" The answer seems to be that he has not been fired. But apparently no one cares because there seems to be an active search going on for a new coach and no one is giving any sort of conditional statements regarding Zorn's presence at the position in the future. It's really strange.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/14/2009 @ 01:04:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Where things stand:

Saints #1 Seed - Magic number is 2 (Vikings).
Vikings Bye Week - Magic Number is 2 (Eagles and possibly Cardinals).
Vikings NFC North - Magic Number is 1
Packers Magic number is 3.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/14/2009 @ 05:46:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Are we allowed to comment on the next week before the current week is completed? I assume Jeremy has to head to north pole to prepare for Christmas journey, and so he had to make his picks early. He is Santa Clause afterall, right?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/14/2009 @ 06:20:07 PM
 Quote this comment
I had to run it by Jesus, Allah, Shiva, Obama, and Matt, but they all said it was ok.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Me at work.JPGOrinath - 5 Posts
12/15/2009 @ 08:51:19 AM
 Quote this comment
I have faith in the Niners to take it to Philly IN THEIR HOUSE! Also, I'm liking Cleveland over KC this week. KC looking week against Buffalo in week 14 and Cleveland looking strong against Pittsburgh.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
12/15/2009 @ 09:51:13 AM
 Quote this comment
I gave the nod to the Chiefs because they were the home team, but I hardly think it would be any sort of an upset.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4151 Posts
12/16/2009 @ 07:07:18 PM
 Quote this comment
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091215/PKR01/91215201/1058/PKR01/Notebook--Packers-can-clinch-playoff-berth-on-Sunday-with-win--some-help

It's getting exciting! Go Saints!!! (for multiple reasons)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
12/17/2009 @ 06:58:48 AM
 Quote this comment
A win by the Pack and a Cowboy or Giant loss guarantees a spot and also will leave us with back-to-back games against the Cards in the final week and the wildcard.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
12/17/2009 @ 01:31:31 PM
 Quote this comment
The back to back Cardinals game is possible, but that won't be determined this week, or certainly not at least by virtue of a Packer win and Cowboy loss.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/17/2009 1:33:16 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
12/18/2009 @ 09:47:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Boy, what would piss a vikes fan off more than having to face us in the playoffs? We would win that one, and handily.

I said it first.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
12/18/2009 @ 10:29:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:31:31 PM
The back to back Cardinals game is possible, but that won't be determined this week, or certainly not at least by virtue of a Packer win and Cowboy loss.


It will if the Cards win.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
blonde_gleam.gifLysmal
12/19/2009 @ 06:40:26 PM
 Quote this comment
emoticonFor the 1st time this year I have picked the Chiefs..I love my Chiefs and I hope this will be a win for them...May be they will all show up to play..I was so up set when I had to work late Thursday night & didn't get my pick in..emoticon.
Oh! will, "go Chiefs"emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
12/20/2009 @ 12:28:39 AM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 12/18/2009 @ 10:29:37 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 12/17/2009 @ 01:31:31 PM
The back to back Cardinals game is possible, but that won't be determined this week, or certainly not at least by virtue of a Packer win and Cowboy loss.


It will if the Cards win.


If all that happened the Cards would've been 9-5, the Cowboys 8-6, and the Packers 10-6. However, the Eagles are 9-4, so the 3rd and 4th seeds are far from decided. In fact Philly plays SF, Denver, and Dallas, while the Cards play @Det, StL, and GB. So it almost seems likely that the Cards snipe the #3 seed. They play one good team, and they'll almost certainly have nothing to play for because they'll have locked up the 5th seed by then. So, not only could it not have been decided this week, it's really not even all that likely.*

*Well, maybe that's overstating it, but it's not a gimme, and at any rate, wouldn't have been decided. Az isn't even necessarily in the playoffs with a win this week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 12/20/2009 12:35:12 am
sarah.jpgSarah - 4151 Posts
12/20/2009 @ 03:38:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Browns vs Chiefs looked like it would've been a fun game to watch, Cribbs had 2 TD returns for over 100 yards and it came down to the last minute.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
12/20/2009 @ 05:20:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Since when is taking 4 steps with the ball not a completion and fumble?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
12/21/2009 @ 08:57:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:20:32 PM
Since when is taking 4 steps with the ball not a completion and fumble?

If I am thinking of the same play as you, I think it falls back to the concept of "maintaining posession while falling to the ground." The receiver caught the ball, but never really had control of his body, and when he finally came to the ground, the ball came loose then he was hit. Although I don't agree with the interpretation (same as Jennings getting robbed of a touchdown against the Bears), I think that's the explanation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/21/2009 @ 11:13:34 AM
 Quote this comment
2 feet down with the ball in your hands is a catch. Falling to the ground only matters when you don't get 2 feet down, particularly in the end zone on that Jennings TD.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/21/2009 @ 11:39:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:13:34 PM
2 feet down with the ball in your hands is a catch. Falling to the ground only matters when you don't get 2 feet down, particularly in the end zone on that Jennings TD.

Except that Jennings got two feet down, and didn't start falling until after he had a third foot down and then the ball was knocked loose.

The point is, I agree that it should have been a fumble against the Steelers. I think they interpretted these two cases incorrectly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4151 Posts
12/21/2009 @ 08:50:30 PM
 Quote this comment
http://theredzone.org/BlogDescription.aspx?EntryId=1845

So McCarthy needs to be fired ASAP if he isn't even going to consider firing Crosby, that is unbelievable. You know that if we do actually get into the playoffs, we'll lose because Crosby will miss at least one, if not multiple field goals during the game.emoticon

Oh, and that Jennings non-touchdown was a touchdown, let it be written let it be said, I have decreed it so.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
12/21/2009 @ 10:28:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Who are they going to bring in? Half the teams in the league are having kicker issues this year. It's not like he doesn't have the leg or he's missing by 30 ft.

Crosby: My options, sir.
McCarthy: Simple. First you've acquired enough points to show up tomorrow and graduate with your Top Gun class, or you can quit. There'd be no disgrace. That spin was hell, it would've shook me up.
Crosby: So you think I should quit?
McCarthy: I didn't say that. The simple fact is you feel responsible for Goose and you have a confidence problem. Now I'm not gonna sit here and blow sunshine up your ass, Lieutenant. A good pilot is compelled to evaluate what's happened, so he can apply what he's learned. Up there, we gotta push it. That's our job. It's your option, Lieutenant. All yours.
Crosby: Sorry to bother you on a Sunday, sir, but thank you very much for your time.
McCarthy: No problem. Good luck.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/21/2009 @ 11:34:26 PM
 Quote this comment
The Jennings play was not a td. They interpreted the rule correctly, it's just a bad rule. There was a whole article about that one play on espn.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/7480/dirty-laundry-possession-in-the-end-zone

That is, assuming this is the play you're still whining talking about.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/22/2009 @ 07:51:25 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:34:26 AM
The Jennings play was not a td. They interpreted the rule correctly, it's just a bad rule. There was a whole article about that one play on espn. http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/7480/dirty-laundry-possession-in-the-end-zone That is, assuming this is the play you're still whining talking about.


I disagree, simply because the explanation did not at all match what actually happened on the play. the nanosecond that Jennings gets his second foot down, it's a touchdown. He then lost the ball after the third foot stepped out of bounds, and then fell to the ground. The ref said the act of falling was what caused the ball to come loose.

And if by "whining" you mean "mentioned it once over a week after it happened", then I guess I'm whining.

edit: after reading the ESPN thing: the rule says talks about falling in the act of making the catch. He was not falling in the act of making the catch. the ESPN explanation is flat out wrong, and so is the league's. The rule might indeed be bad, but the interpretation, in my opinion, was not applied in the correct manner.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/22/2009 7:57:34 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/22/2009 @ 09:39:31 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, like I said, and like the article said, it's a bad rule because it violates the "the nano second it's a td the play is over" general tenet. It's a technicality more than anything.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

Obviously if it wasn't a catch period they wouldn't need to have this rule, so we can assume this rule always applies when it's otherwise a good catch, and if the "nano second" rule applied, they wouldn't have added the bold part to the rule.

The rule states the fall can be on his own, or with contact, which I can only assume happened. The only wiggle room your green tinted glasses have left in denying that everyone who's job it is to interpret the rule got it right is the amount of time that passed between second foot down and the take down. I didn't see it, so I don't know. I can only assume if you catch a td and then trip over a camera cable halfway back to the bench and drop the ball, this doesn't apply.

I can't find a clip anywhere, but according to a JSOnline article he was actually contacted before he got the second foot down. Given that, I don't see any reason you can argue this rule doesn't apply.

Fake edit: I found a clip (2nd play) It probably should be a td, which is why I agree it's a bad rule, but this rule clearly applies.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
12/22/2009 @ 12:04:49 PM
 Quote this comment
(get ready to be proven wrong about me wearing green-tinted glasses)
I think the misinterpretation comes into play with the wording "in the act of catching a pass". I read that as while catching the ball the player goes to the ground, the must maintain possession when the hit the ground. Jennings' "act of catching the pass" did not involve going to the ground. He made the catch, took 2 full footed steps in bounds with complete possession, took a third step, then had the ball knocked loose, then was dragged to the ground. In other words, the fall was in no way related to the act of catching, as the catch was already made (and then fumbled), before the fall ever occurred. Hence why I believe it was just a flatout misinterpretation of their own rule.

So in review, since the fall was not part of the "act of catching the pass", this rule does not in any way apply to that situation. Now, the only thing that is then up for interpretation is if the fall was or was not part of the act of catching the pass; I do not believe it was. Since it wasn't, the rule doesn't apply.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/22/2009 @ 03:24:28 PM
 Quote this comment
In what sense was that not the act of catching the pass?

Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:04:49 PM
He made the catch, took 2 full footed steps in bounds with complete possession, took a third step, then had the ball knocked loose, then was dragged to the ground.


Indeed, which was all part of the play. The only way you could argue that "took a third step, then had the ball knocked loose, then was dragged to the ground" doesn't matter is if the "play stops" aspect of the endzone matters here, which, for whatever reason, it doesn't, or else "in the endzone" wouldn't be part of the rule.

Contact was initiated before the play was complete, and by the end of the play Jennings was on the ground without the ball. It's a textbook example of that (stupid) rule, though, I doubt the spirit of it. I mean really, if you're saying this wasn't "in the act of catching," describe a situation that would be? Again, the "two feet in with complete possession" (or a body part that qualifies) is implied by this rule even being written down. It would only ever apply in situations where without it the pass would be called a completion. It's not like this was a situation where Jennings caught the ball, celebrated for 30 seconds, before tripping over Tillman, and dropped the ball, and the refs looked up some obscure rule to screw him.

Really though, I can't think of a good reason for this rule at all. If I lunge for a ball, catch it and stumble with it for 3 steps, fall, and drop it on the way down, seems to me that should be a catch, and a live ball. Just like it would be if the exact thing happened if I didn't fall and got stripped instead. I'm not sure why me on the ground at the end of the play is the relevant portion. I caught the ball or not.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/22/2009 3:58:10 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/22/2009 @ 03:33:10 PM
 Quote this comment
About the only reason I can think of would be on a diving catch if my elbow were to hit down, which under normal circumstances is enough to be a completion, but in the act of that elbow hitting, I didn't hang on. In that case there was about .00000009 of a second where yes, technically, I had possession of it when my elbow hit and the time I in which I didn't have the ball anymore. So it's not really fair to give credit for that. However, the rule comes up quite often in situations where it seems like falling over is an irrelevant side event.

I guess that maybe it's a rule made to help defenses to give them one more tool, ie "When in doubt, knock them down"

If it's the former it's misapplied in almost all uses, and if it's the latter, that's kind of lame.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/23/2009 @ 12:18:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:24:28 PM
In what sense was that not the act of catching the pass?
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:04:49 PM
He made the catch, took 2 full footed steps in bounds with complete possession, took a third step, then had the ball knocked loose, then was dragged to the ground.


Catch....2 steps...third step....ball knocked loose......fall to the ground. At the very latest, the catch process ended when the ball was knocked loose. The fall to the ground happend after that, and hadn't started until the ball was essentially no longer in possession.

But it wasn't the "fall" that caused the ball to come lose. "In the act of goiing to the ground, the ball came loose". Completely false. "In the act of making the catch, the receiver got 2 feet in bounds, and then the defender knocked the ball loose, and then the receiver fell to the ground. Therefore, the 'going to the ground' rule does not apply. The play results in a touchdown".

I would think moreso that this rule would apply if you lost the ball because of the fall. And really, I would think this rule to be more legit if it was only applied to cases where a receiver only gets his tiptoes down. When you take two complete steps, that is clearly less of a judgement of anything compared to a receiver diving, getting his toes in, and then falling to the ground and losing the ball.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 12/23/2009 12:21:26 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
12/23/2009 @ 12:43:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's another angle:

The rule does not mention anything about a defender knocking the ball away independent from any subsequent fall. If Jennings hadn't fallen, but after the third step, the ball was knocked away, is it then a catch and a touchdown? If it is, then there is no other conclusion that the rule does not apply in this case. Without using unrealistic examples like celebrating 30 seconds after the catch, I can easily argue that since the fall happened after the ball was knocked out, then the catch process was over before the fall.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/23/2009 @ 12:47:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:33:10 PM
If it's the former it's misapplied in almost all uses, and if it's the latter, that's kind of lame.


This is exactly my point, and I think I just won the argument because of it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 12/23/2009 12:48:11 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/23/2009 @ 01:39:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:18:44 PM
Catch....2 steps...third step....ball knocked loose......fall to the ground. At the very latest, the catch process ended when the ball was knocked loose. The fall to the ground happend after that, and hadn't started until the ball was essentially no longer in possession.

But it wasn't the "fall" that caused the ball to come lose. "In the act of goiing to the ground, the ball came loose". Completely false.

I would think moreso that this rule would apply if you lost the ball because of the fall.


And if you can point to where the rule says anything about the order in which things have to happen for the rule to apply I'll be happy to read it. The rule says nothing about the fall causing anything, or the ball having to come out during a fall. If a player winds up on the ground, he has to still have the ball. That's really all it says.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:43:42 PM
Here's another angle:

The rule does not mention anything about a defender knocking the ball away independent from any subsequent fall. If Jennings hadn't fallen, but after the third step, the ball was knocked away, is it then a catch and a touchdown? If it is, then there is no other conclusion that the rule does not apply in this case. Without using unrealistic examples like celebrating 30 seconds after the catch, I can easily argue that since the fall happened after the ball was knocked out, then the catch process was over before the fall.


We've been over this like 10 times. If Jennings hadn't fallen, it's probably a TD. That's irrelevant because he DID fall, and this rule can ONLY apply in situations where it would OTHERWISE be a completion. Contact was initiated before the completion, the result of that contact was Jennings falling, and when a receiver falls they have to have the ball after they hit the ground. Why? Who knows, but it is what it is, and I'm not sure what possible contention you could have with it, outside of it being a lame rule, which we all agree with.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:47:50 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:33:10 PM
If it's the former it's misapplied in almost all uses, and if it's the latter, that's kind of lame.


This is exactly my point, and I think I just won the argument because of it.


There's a difference in being misapplied in the sense that it's misguided given the reasons for its origin and them being incorrect about ruling the way they do.

If I was trying to prevent statutory rape and made a law stating that any adult having sex with a minor was subject to a no-questions asked 30 years in prison it would likely be a misapplication of the intentions of it to slap 30 years on a 18 and 2 day year old having sex with his 17 and 360 day old girlfriend. It wouldn't be an incorrect application as that situation clearly applies given the wording. It likely just means that the law was overly general, or just a dumb idea. That's what I meant in this case. They made the right call, the rule is just poorly worded to be overly general. That clearly should have been a touchdown. He got two feet down, while moving which IMO counts more than the 2 toes in, the ball wasn't knocked lose until he had a 3rd foot down, and the fall was completely irrelevant to the play. That said, it's also true that it clearly qualifies for this rule. There's no part of it that doesn't, and, given the wording for what it says, no reason to think it shouldn't.

I doubt this play is what anyone thought of when they put that in there, but it's in there. You guys got "tuck ruled".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 12/23/2009 2:47:25 pm
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/24/2009 @ 07:45:50 AM
 Quote this comment
the fall had nothing to do with the "act of making the catch". Done. How is that not so plainly obvious? The rule is intended for guys who are falling while making a catch, not players who make a catch and then fall down.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
12/24/2009 @ 09:13:51 AM
 Quote this comment
It's not "plainly obvious" because that isn't what happened. The fall was a result of the contact, the contact was made during the "act of making the catch." Though, in reality it doesn't say anywhere it needs to be during that tiny window either. This rule gets invoked on plays where people stumble with the ball secured for a few yards and then fall. You can just as easily say that everything that goes into that play is the "act of making the catch."

You can torture the rule, and hyper analyze snippets all you want, everything that went down was a continuation of the play, and if a reliever falls at any point, they have to still have the ball. The end. That's all it says. Nothing about toes and sidelines. Nothing about what order things have to happen. Nothing about how long the receiver has to have the ball to not qualify. (Another reason the rule is terrible.)

What the rule was intended for is irrelevant in determining if this play qualifies, and it does. There's no reason to assert that the "act of catching" applies only to the .003 seconds at the very end of the play where the ball either stays in the guys hands, or not, rather than everything that goes into catching a ball (position/contact/etc), and if it were the case that it was the fraction of a second where a ball crosses the plane of existence between "in the air" and "touching the receivers hands", there wouldn't be a whole lot of room to make this call ever. Furthermore, it's not clear that this wouldn't apply even if that were the case.

Like I said before, if a receiver didn't get two feet in, or bobbled the ball then fell, this rule wouldn't come up because it would be an incompletion for those reasons. Thus, we can conclude that if we interpreted the "act of catching the pass" to be what you're saying then this rule would never apply. On paper, everyone who has ever qualified for this rule successfully completed the "act of catching" the ball otherwise. (In practice we often don't see or not if they caught the ball because they often don't look because it's irrelevant if the ball is on the ground at the end.)

Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:45:50 AM
The rule is intended for guys who are falling while making a catch, not players who make a catch and then fall down.


It shouldn't be, but it obviously applies for guys that "catch then fall" too.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

If a player went to the ground because of contact before he actually caught the ball it would be pass interference. Obviously this contact that causes the player to go to the ground can come post what would otherwise be a catch on a guy that isn't otherwise falling. Their intention there could have been a reciever tips the ball, gets hit, starts to fall, catches ball, hits ground and drops ball. However, it doesn't say that. This wasn't an example of Jennings catching the ball, establishing he had standing control of this body, and then getting knocked over, the entirety of the "act" all happened together.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 12/24/2009 9:31:09 am
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
12/24/2009 @ 10:09:24 AM
 Quote this comment
At best, it is a very liberal interpretation of the rule. Again, the rule makes sense for diving catches, but a running catch that ends up with the receiver on the ground after taking three steps is 1000 fold different than a receiver who dives for a ball, gets his toes down, and then loses the ball when his arms touch the ground.

(and my use of "plainly obvious" and "1000 fold" is simply my attempt to keep up with the hyperbole of my debate opponent. Although it is difficult to keep up at times)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott perfected this at 12/24/2009 10:10:42 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 9006 Posts
12/24/2009 @ 10:16:47 AM
 Quote this comment
Agreed, but the rule doesn't say anything about the specific situations where it actually makes sense, which is why it's a shitty rule, though still applicable to both those scenarios.

About the only thing that makes sense to me is if you're depending on your upper body, especially elbows, to establish possession, then you have hang on to the ball. (If there's .00002 seconds between elbow down and ball out, then sure, call it incomplete.) If you have toes in and control that should be a catch regardless.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
12/24/2009 @ 10:20:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:16:47 AM
Agreed, but the rule doesn't say anything about the specific situations where it actually makes sense, which is why it's a shitty rule, though still applicable to both those scenarios.


The fact that it doesn't specify about certain situations seems to me to allow discretion. And this case seems to be a case where discretion would have ruled it as a touchdown.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
12/24/2009 @ 10:21:04 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:09:24 AM
(and my use of "plainly obvious" and "1000 fold" is simply my attempt to keep up with the hyperbole of my debate opponent. Although it is difficult to keep up at times)


Harsh. (And not true.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
12/24/2009 @ 10:35:38 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:20:51 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:16:47 AM
Agreed, but the rule doesn't say anything about the specific situations where it actually makes sense, which is why it's a shitty rule, though still applicable to both those scenarios.


The fact that it doesn't specify about certain situations seems to me to allow discretion. And this case seems to be a case where discretion would have ruled it as a touchdown.


I don't claim to be an NFL Rule Book expert, but I'm pretty sure the situations where discretion is allowed spell that out. Either way, that's probably not a wise way to read a rule book. (Well, in a perfect world it would be, but not an imperfect one where you try to officiate everything the same.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
12/24/2009 @ 10:53:43 AM
 Quote this comment
Besides, and not to labor this even more, though I don't doubt it will. I don't think this was a matter of discretion or not anyway. Contact was initiated prior to a completion being made, at which point the rules are different. The second foot is only one aspect at that point. The whole point is that it was no longer a completion because just because that 2nd foot came down. I actually think this is pretty cut and dried call.

According to some bickering Packer fans this wasn't even the only example of this happening, being ruled this way, and being held up after review, in this very game. (I guess it happened to Greg Olson too.)

(Unless you meant they should try to stick to the spirit of rules, but that's not fair either, because what happens if they call this on you and not on another team because they have different interpretations of what it was really meant to apply to?)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - www.digi.com
12/29/2009 @ 07:35:05 AM
 Quote this comment
i like turtles
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.