NFL 2010 Season Week 1 Picks

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 08/28/2010 @ 11:17:39 AM
Boomshockalocka!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/29/2010 @ 07:01:41 PM
Don't you mean Favre and the NFL 2010 Season Week 1 Picks?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/01/2010 @ 02:10:41 PM
For those of you not on Facebook, I am excited to announce that I am going to the December 5th game vs the 49ers! Oh the excitement will not be contained even in my blaze orange overalls and jacket!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/01/2010 @ 03:25:33 PM
The Vikings may have dominated the game from a statistical standpoint, but the Saints won the turnover battle 5-1. In the 2nd half, they had two touchdown drives of 37 and 7 yards, so that can definitely schew the offensive numbers such that it looks like they couldn't move the ball. Not to say that the Saints were an unstopable force or that the Vikings didn't show up, they most certainly did and Saints certainly eaked that out that win. But, while I remember thinking that the Saints could have been flagged numerous times for RTP, it's hard to say that the Vikings dominated necessarily. Although I'll be fair and claim that I do not remember enough about the game to necessarily say that Jeremy is wrong in his analysis of said domination. (and for the record, I was silently rooting for the Vikings, so this isn't me ripping a team that I simply didn't like). (and I'm probably just provoking something awful, but I've already written it, so I can't take it back). All that being said, it should be worth noting how "heroic" (if you think that word appropriate for sports) Favre's performance was in that game. He had a noticeable limp towards the end of the game, he was indeed getting pummeled, and he still threw for over 300 yards. I think his goal this year should just be to not have his last pass attempt end up as an interception. Is that too much to ask? Edit: the Vikings had nearly 500 yards of offense, so "dominated" probably does apply, regardless of the turnover-schewed numbers of the Saints.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/01/2010 3:28:10 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/01/2010 @ 03:39:08 PM
I think I'm more excited for this season that I'm willing to admit or even realize. I think in my old age I am trying to keep a more level head about expectations.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/03/2010 @ 08:17:51 AM
This can't be good. 15/16 of the ESPN writers pick the Packers to win the North, 9/16 pick them to win the NFC, and 4/16 pick them to win the Super Bowl. I think I'd prefer the expectations to be a little lower than that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	JDUB316 09/06/2010 @ 02:51:16 AM
Man, just can't for the season to start...... only a few more days. my girlfriend hates it but me and my 5 year old son are SUPER excited. I think I may have created a little Eagles fan, he almost started crying the other day telling his mom " I'm gonna be at school and can't watch the games with my daddy". We explained to him that he will be able to watch the games with me because they play on sunday or at night when he is not at school. He kind of knows alot about the Eagles at least for a 5 year old, like the names of WR Desean Jackson and Jermey Macklin. He knew the names of former Eagles Brian Westbrook and Donavan Mcnabb, he even knows that Mcnabb isn't the QB anymore and that he went to the redskins. I love the fact that he is starting to be interested in football........ I LOVE IT, I LOVE IT !!!!!!! THATS MY LITTLE DUDE..........		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/06/2010 @ 07:28:42 AM
Teaching him the more important things in life at an early age.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 09/06/2010 @ 07:34:53 PM
Sweet, picks are up.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - That hypocrite smokes two packs a day. 09/06/2010 @ 07:36:43 PM
I'll be at Queens Pack on Sunday night this year.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
PackOne screwed with this at 09/06/2010 7:42:21 pm

	mbaraclo - 11 Posts 09/06/2010 @ 09:49:34 PM
I wish I could say that my lifetime record was like, 95,954 - 17, but that would just be ridiculous. First time as a nutcanner and looking forward to hashing it out with you guys!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 09/07/2010 @ 08:47:45 AM
YAY! PICKS! Go LionS! ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/07/2010 @ 06:12:52 PM
Woah, so many people have done picks already! Gotta get my head in the game early, could catch up to Jeremy this year! In fact, I plan on it!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/07/2010 @ 10:11:21 PM
I know the senior staffers only count wins (I think), but I can proudly say that I have the best winning percentage of anyone with a minimum of 1000 career picks.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/09/2010 @ 05:56:43 PM
It's good to see every is excited for the season to start. [/sarcasm]		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 09/09/2010 5:56:53 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/09/2010 @ 06:14:57 PM
I'm not. I barely want to watch tonight.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/09/2010 @ 08:20:46 PM
They just showed a montage of a bunch of the hits Favre took during the NFC Championship game last year. In any other game at any other point of the season, at least 3, maybe four of those hits would have warranted a person foul, a couple of them could have warranted fines, and one of them could have been borderline suspension. It was stomach wrenching seeing all of them at once like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/09/2010 @ 08:31:10 PM
Charles Woodson signs extension with the Packers through 2014. If he plays his contract out, that means he will have been a Packer for 9 years, which means he will eventually be more Packer than Raider. That's something special, I suppose.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/09/2010 @ 08:47:51 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:20:46 PM They just showed a montage of a bunch of the hits Favre took during the NFC Championship game last year. In any other game at any other point of the season, at least 3, maybe four of those hits would have warranted a person foul, a couple of them could have warranted fines, and one of them could have been borderline suspension. It was stomach wrenching seeing all of them at once like that. But the Saints are an inspiration to the world so what would be cheap/borderline-criminal for any other team becomes "awesome gameplan" even though there's virtually no way you can make that case anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/09/2010 @ 09:58:16 PM
So a ref in position to actually see a play calls a play a catch, a ref behind the play in no position to see shit comes running in and overrules it. Then since it actually was a catch the Vikes review it, but since is was too close to call they have to stick to the original call, even though that was revised itself. The system works.....		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/09/2010 10:04:56 pm

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 09/09/2010 @ 11:05:54 PM
It might be the lighting, but during the post-game interview, Favre looked about 50 years old.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 09/10/2010 @ 07:40:07 AM
I put the odds that Favre retires today at 64.3%		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	craig - 132 Posts 09/10/2010 @ 06:50:14 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:05:54 PM It might be the lighting, but during the post-game interview, Favre looked about 50 years old. That reminds me. Whatever happened to that old guy the vikings signed about a year ago? He showed up to a press conference in a tattered old hat that should have been thrown away.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 09/11/2010 @ 09:06:32 AM
I think you would call this good news about Harvin http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5556710		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 09/11/2010 @ 10:22:36 AM
Yeah, here's hoping. It would finally be some good news for the Vikings, and an end to a life long royal pain in the ass for a guy who seems to be a pretty cool. No more meetings in the dark. Seems a little too good to be true though, but either way they caught something that was dangerous, so it can't be bad news.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/11/2010 @ 07:36:52 PM
I'm trying to get excited for tomorrow and the start of the NFL season. Maybe I just can't believe it's here or something. Or maybe I'm the reverse of Scott.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 09/12/2010 @ 12:38:41 PM
Also Re:Jon's Jackson comments; that "potential new team" is almost certainly the Vikings. Rumor has it they've even already worked out the contract. The only thing holding it up is the fact that the Chargers put his on their roster exemption list, meaning he couldn't play for them until week 7, but it's not clear if that would transfer were he traded. A ruling on that will be made shortly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/12/2010 12:43:13 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 01:10:48 PM
I can't believe I picked the Bengals... how embarrassing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 02:51:38 PM
I'm trying to practice reserved, cautious optimism.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 03:16:18 PM
The Lions just lost the game via that rule we debated on that Greg Jennings TD last year. Quite a shame.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 03:20:43 PM
That rule sucks. Apparently the act of getting up is part of the falling down process.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 03:21:32 PM
And, I was just saying, "jennings got robbed last year for the same type of thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 03:29:33 PM
As soon as that happened I told Sarah they're going to call it no TD. The rule itself is probably OK, I just have my doubts it was meant to apply to situations like this, and now they're being too literal. Either way the thing is, lame or not, it's something players need to be aware of. If you're not on the ground don't let the ball go until you're standing on the sideline. There was no reason he had to hold the ball in one hand like that, other than, ironically, perhaps to demonstrate his total control of it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 09/12/2010 @ 03:30:01 PM
Eagles just got away with a 15yard facemask penalty that didn't get called.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/12/2010 @ 03:47:22 PM
And the Packers have gotten away with holding on virtually every play. It happens. Edit: Ahhhhh, football season.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/12/2010 4:11:38 pm

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/12/2010 @ 04:13:25 PM
That, non interception was, I think, the reason the ball to the ground rule was made.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/12/2010 @ 04:43:11 PM
Also at the end of the debate, which I was clearly correct about, Carl makes a comment that's making the rounds as the next big meme, and will be the next Web Redemption on Tosh.0. http://nutcan.com/nflpicks/2009-15.php http://www.google.com/search?q=i+like+turtles&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 04:54:09 PM
You can thank the refs for those 3 points. Terrible. The Packers should have gotten forward progress for the 1st, or the clock stoppage for running out of bounds under his own control short of the first. You can't give them both. Edit: Which, by the way Fox announcers, was what the Eagles coaches on the sidelines were going apeshit about. Obviously he got out of bounds on his own accord, that's sort of the point.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 09/12/2010 4:59:19 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 05:35:15 PM
Well, the eagles can thank the refs for those 7 points, because raji's jersy was stretched tight as the rb ran by him.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/12/2010 @ 05:41:30 PM
On the other hand, give the ealges their 7 ponts, take away the packers 3. The result is still total domination.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/12/2010 @ 05:53:07 PM
Uh huh.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 06:01:00 PM
Next week I might do some research on my picks.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 06:07:54 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:35:15 PM Well, the eagles can thank the refs for those 7 points, because raji's jersy was stretched tight as the rb ran by him. That's not really the same thing anyway. Missed calls are going to happen. There's been a lot of stretched horrific-green too. The free time out on the FG drive was a procedural thing. The kind of thing that should be noticed, and that you can change your mind on when it's pointed out to you. It's not a judgment call.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 06:14:39 PM
And again... there should be another 30-40 seconds on the clock. That was an incomplete shovel pass, and Andy Reid was screaming that at them, they could have stopped it and reset the clock. Also, for craps sake Vick, just run that in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 09/12/2010 6:15:19 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 06:25:45 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:07:54 PM There's been a lot of stretched horrific-green too. I kind of like the lighter green.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 09/12/2010 @ 06:28:29 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 06:25:45 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:07:54 PM There's been a lot of stretched horrific-green too. I kind of like the lighter green. Well it's all a matter of opinion, but you're wrong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/12/2010 @ 06:29:29 PM
4 and 1 for the game. This is the situation teams love to dial up their least likely to succeed cutesy play. Let's see. Edit: Shocking. A dominating win against a team that played awesome.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/12/2010 6:31:08 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/12/2010 @ 06:31:53 PM
1-0		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/12/2010 @ 06:34:17 PM
Luckily the 3 points the procedural mistake led to and the 4 points Vick inexplicably gave up by not running in from the 3 yard line with no one in front of him had no bearing on the outcome. Now for 3 weeks of talk about how the tide has turned in the NFC North.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/12/2010 6:34:31 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 06:37:08 PM
The packers survived vick and 50 some years of history. I'll take what I can get in that case. Not too many teams can burn the packers defense by the qb scramble, which is how vick got the eagles back in it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 09/12/2010 @ 06:39:39 PM
A lot of times those things are happenstance more than there's anything to read into them, but it had really been that long since the Packers won there? I assumed they misspoke because announcers live to drop conditionals from things like that. (A non noon game, without Favre, etc)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/12/2010 @ 06:45:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:34:17 PM Luckily the 3 points the procedural mistake led to and the 4 points Vick inexplicably gave up by not running in from the 3 yard line with no one in front of him had no bearing on the outcome. Now for 3 weeks of talk about how the tide has turned in the NFC North. What tide? Everyone predicted that the Packers would go to the Super Bowl this year...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/12/2010 @ 06:51:03 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:45:09 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:34:17 PM Luckily the 3 points the procedural mistake led to and the 4 points Vick inexplicably gave up by not running in from the 3 yard line with no one in front of him had no bearing on the outcome. Now for 3 weeks of talk about how the tide has turned in the NFC North. What tide? Everyone predicted that the Packers would go to the Super Bowl this year... Indeed, so clearly all those people were right, and will spend the weeks beating their chest and reminding everyone that they predicted it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/12/2010 @ 06:56:49 PM
RUFiO1984 Wrote - 09/07/2010 @ 08:47:45 AM YAY! PICKS! Go LionS! ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, your thoughts on the Lions game?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/12/2010 @ 08:00:18 PM
I guess craig gets the fail of the week for not getting his Vikings-Saints pick in and qualifying for the trophy. My first reaction to seeing the Johnson play live was that it would be ruled incomplete. Although after seeing the replay 3 times I think there was a chance that they could have ruled his rolling over and putting his hands down to stand up as a "second act". And probably should have. Shotgun formation for QB sneak up the middle? Straight ridiculous, but thanks! Also, Reid burned their timeouts too soon. For all he knew, the Packers were going to throw 3 incomplete passes with 5+ minutes still left in the game. Although they apparently dipped into their "how to blow a lead" offensive package. Why was Jennings running a 15 yard hook on 3rd and 7 when they pretty much knew the Eagles were blitzing and Rodgers wouldn't have much time? And where was the screen pass when the Eagles kept blitzing up the middle? Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:28:29 PM Matt Wrote - Today @ 06:25:45 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:07:54 PM There's been a lot of stretched horrific-green too. I kind of like the lighter green. Well it's all a matter of opinion, but you're wrong. Word Very impressed with Matthews today. Looked twice as fast as any other pass rusher they had. Packers need less Woodson blitzes and more Matthews blitzes. I'll be glad if the Packers don't have to face Vick again this year. He causes too much pandemonium, which is both his strength and his weakness.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 09/12/2010 @ 10:23:27 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:56:49 PM RUFiO1984 Wrote - 09/07/2010 @ 09:47:45 AM YAY! PICKS! Go LionS! ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, your thoughts on the Lions game? Horrible :( and I am disgusted with the NFL and its officiating the past couple years ... it definitely should have been a TD... I must have watched the replay 20 times and I don't see where there is a single bobble or twitch even when he is holding it in one hand. Two feet, Butt, hip and left hand all touch the ground before the ball does. Only until he turns to roll and get up does the ball leave his hand. :-/ might be biased on the call, but that is what I saw. CJ should have brought it in though so there wouldn't be a question. Good Job Bears, you got away with one! See ya soon in Detroit! Got to love the Lions D stepping up at the goal line, Made me have some hope for the defense! Can't help but to think the officials are related to Jim Joyce lol Ahh, football season......................		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
RUFiO1984 messed with this at 09/12/2010 10:28:54 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 07:08:04 AM
The thing to be disgusted about is that the call probably was correct. That rule has it's place, but it needs to be adjusted. At the very least, the NFL needs to clearly define what the "process of making a catch" is and what "going to the ground" consists of. Bob Costas said last night that if you watched that play, regardless of the rule, it looked like a touchdown. The spirit of the game says that it was a touchdown. But a technicality written into the rules that says that you apparently have to rise to your feet while still having possession makes it an incomplete pass. If you remember the year the Steelers won the super bowl, during the playoffs that year when the Steelers played the Colts, Troy Polamalu made an interception, rolled on the ground like 3 times, came up with the ball, but before he was up on his feet in control of his body he knocked the ball away with his knee and they ruled it an incomplete pass. Same rule, same interpretation, same need to start defining terms more clearly that you are using for such detail.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 07:15:26 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:39:39 PM A lot of times those things are happenstance more than there's anything to read into them, but it had really been that long since the Packers won there? I assumed they misspoke because announcers live to drop conditionals from things like that. (A non noon game, without Favre, etc) Packers vs Eagles game log The last time the Packers won in Philly was 1962. Happenstance, maybe. Or the ghosts of the prison inside the old stadium scared the small town packers who were only used to having the towns single cell sheriff's office.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/13/2010 7:16:03 am

	Micah - Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land. 09/13/2010 @ 09:19:40 AM
Referencing the baseball vs football articles, this play is Reason #1 on my list of why I like baseball better than football. As a pretty casual football observer, I don't even know what half of the rules are anymore, especially those regarding receiving. One foot in or two? Can they be pushed out? Was there a football move? What the hell is a football move? Does Calvin Johnson have to keep the ball in his hands until the extra point is kicked? Not to mention that we expect a 300-pound linebacker diving for a sack to stop in mid-air, turn and not touch the QB because he threw the ball. Every week there are 50 posts here arguing about calls from the Packers and Vikings (and now Lions!!!) games. When I argue with friends about baseball, I argue about pitching, hitting, defense, and stats. When I talk with friends about football, it inevitably turns to holding calls, players in bounds, and roughing the passer. My dad has been complaining for years that officials decide the results of games more often than players do, and while he can hearken back to an age when players wore leather helmets, it really is a big reason why I don't care all that much about football games. My real hope with this post is that since I talk about baseball and football, that three years down the road someone will throw up a post saying, "You stuPid WUSS, Football is a MAN's sport that a MORON like U Kan never understand since U R a IDIOT baseball lover who likes men like all BASEBALL wussys."		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 09:26:48 AM
We argue about calls basically to bait each other. Oh, and Clay Matthews is a freaking monster. He could play the beast in Beauty and the Beast and he'd essentially be playing himself.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/13/2010 9:27:49 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 10:45:47 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:26:48 AM We argue about calls basically to bait each other. Oh, and Clay Matthews is a freaking monster. He could play the beast in Beauty and the Beast and he'd essentially be playing himself. Speak for yourself, I argue because I'm right and am trying to expose the NFL conspiracy that leads to every Packers win and Vikings loss. Also pretending officiating doesn't effect baseball is silly. They blow balls and strikes and calls on the basepath constantly. In general baseball is a more cut and dried game, maybe, but you still have the occasional "judgment call" (Did he drop the ball or lose it on the exchange, did the ball hit the small batter's size xxxxxxl jersey or not, etc. Stats wise, should that be an error or a hit, etc.) The funny thing is I think part of the reason this rule exists is exactly what people are complaining about most. It takes bias/judgment out of it. People can play the was that "during the act of the catch" or not, but it certainly happened quickly enough, he never came to a stop, and then got up. This rule might exist for that very reason, there's no "call" to be made. "Did the play result with him on the ground? Yes. Did he hang on to the ball until the play ran its course? No. Ok, then it's incomplete." I agree with Costas, and by extension all the points I made during Jennings-Gate. While I generally agree with making rules that take any sort of judgment out of the equation, this rule is clearly reaching plays where that are probably far outside the spirit in which the rule was intended. Any thinking person, as well as probably 99% of Bears fans (zing!) would look at that and say they Lions should have won that game. (There was also probably PI on the attempt after it.) Then again it's a rule, like many, that the players have to be aware of. Keep the ball and do nothing until the TD is signaled. It's somewhat similar, though to a lesser extent, to the occasional play where the receiver brings in and then spikes the ball all in one motion and then doesn't get the td, we can quibble about where exactly in that motion it went from possession to intentional spike, but the fact remains the player didn't have to put celebrating before locking up the score. If you wind up on the ground don't let go of the ball until the extra point is kicked.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 09/13/2010 10:49:38 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 10:56:06 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:47 AM I agree with Costas, and by extension all the points I made during Jennings-Gate. You can't agree with Costas and by extension agree with something that is sort of the opposite of what Costas said! The Jennings catch "felt like a touchdown" the same way this one "felt like a touchdown". I can agree with you about the purpose of the rule being to actually remove judgement, but then the rule should be more clear as to what constitutes the "act of making a catch" and "going to the ground" and when both of these terms come to an end. What if Calvin Johnson went to the ground, rolled onto his back, laid there for a few seconds celebrating, and then threw the ball in the air? When does "going to the ground" become, "ok, he's on the ground with the ball and the play is over." Also, there's the two feet rule. If a player is going out of bounds and gets two feet in bounds, it's a catch. If a player is in the endzone gets two feet in, and goes out of bounds, it's a touchdown. When does the "act of making the catch" end in this case? If you get two feet in bounds, it would seem that anything else from that exact point forward would be irrelevant. But the rules are sort of fuzzy, especially because apparently one rule takes precedent over the other. reading the last two paragraphs of your comment, I couldn't agree more. Essentially Johnson may have screwed himself, but then again he may actually have lost control on his way back up from the ground, but didn't think he had to hold on to it for 14 seconds after making the catch. Maybe his intention wasn't to simply celebrate, but rather he was just trying to get to his feet and since he already made the catch, decided the ball was no longer necessary. I will say, I cannot recall a technicality call like this essentially costing a team the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/13/2010 10:59:23 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 10:57:03 AM
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:23:27 PM I must have watched the replay 20 times and I don't see where there is a single bobble or twitch even when he is holding it in one hand. Two feet, Butt, hip and left hand all touch the ground before the ball does. Only until he turns to roll and get up does the ball leave his hand. :-/ might be biased on the call, but that is what I saw. CJ should have brought it in though so there wouldn't be a question. I don't mean to twist the knife, or pick on you, because I've seen this all over, but none of the "usual" markers of a catch matter if you're not standing, you have to maintain control of the ball until the play is concluded. At no point did Megatron stop moving and via the course of his movements he let go of the ball. Sarah and I were cheering like the Vikings/Packers just won until I saw him roll over and leave the ball. I told Sarah it's no catch that second, because as much as people want plays like this, and the Jennings play last season to be exceptions, they're really fairly textbook examples of this rule.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/13/2010 @ 11:00:07 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:47 AM Speak for yourself, I argue because I'm right and am trying to expose the NFL conspiracy that leads to every Packers win and Vikings loss. Not biting, although i'm practicing incredible restraint.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:01:57 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:57:03 AM Sarah and I were cheering like the Vikings/Packers just won until I saw him roll over and leave the ball. I told Sarah it's no catch that second, because as much as people want plays like this, and the Jennings play last season to be exceptions, they're really fairly textbook examples of this rule. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:47 AM While I generally agree with making rules that take any sort of judgment out of the equation, this rule is clearly reaching plays where that are probably far outside the spirit in which the rule was intended. Nuff said.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:04:07 AM
The Jennings catch (because it was a catch) was not as obvious as the calvin johnson catch, clearly. I won't make that argument. But, if there is a rule that says that Calvin Johnson did not make that catch (and possibly the Jennings catch), it is a bad rule, plain and simple.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/13/2010 11:06:18 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:06:40 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:56:06 AM You can't agree with Costas and by extension agree with something that is sort of the opposite of what Costas said! The Jennings catch "felt like a touchdown" the same way this one "felt like a touchdown". I don't see how I said anything opposite. Both plays should be touchdowns in the spirit of the game. Both plays clearly violated this rule. Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:56:06 AM When does "going to the ground" become, "ok, he's on the ground with the ball and the play is over." When the refs hands are in the air. Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:56:06 AM Also, there's the two feet rule. If a player is going out of bounds and gets two feet in bounds, it's a catch. If a player is in the endzone gets two feet in, and goes out of bounds, it's a touchdown. When does the "act of making the catch" end in this case? If you get two feet in bounds, it would seem that anything else from that exact point forward would be irrelevant. But the rules are sort of fuzzy, especially because apparently one rule takes precedent over the other. Again, this is one of the things that bugs me most here. (and again, not jumping on you, as I've seen this 23438 times) There's nothing "fuzzy" here. All those same possession rules apply, always and forever. There's just an additional condition of possession added to the "checklist" if the player winds up on the ground. That's all. The only thing close to being superceded/fuzzy is the general tenet that plays in the endzone are over the nano second possession is established, but the whole point is that the second falling is involved there's a new box on the "Does he have possession" checklist that remains unchecked. So even that really isn't.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 09/13/2010 @ 11:06:43 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:04:07 AM The Jennings catch (because it was a catch) was not as obvious as the calvin johnson catch, clearly. I won't make that argument. But, if there is a rule that says that Calvin Johnson did not make that catch (and possibly the Jennings catch), it is a bad rule, plain and simple. Well, I don't actually think that Calvin Johnson made the Jennings catch, but you get what I was saying.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:09:48 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:06:40 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:56:06 AM When does "going to the ground" become, "ok, he's on the ground with the ball and the play is over." When the refs hands are in the air. Well, the ref in the front right corner of the endzone actually signaled touchdown. If Calvin Johnson saw this (i'm not saying that he did) and then decided the play was over, he got screwed regardless of the rule.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 3 times, last at 09/13/2010 11:14:38 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:09:50 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:01:57 AM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:57:03 AM Sarah and I were cheering like the Vikings/Packers just won until I saw him roll over and leave the ball. I told Sarah it's no catch that second, because as much as people want plays like this, and the Jennings play last season to be exceptions, they're really fairly textbook examples of this rule. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:47 AM While I generally agree with making rules that take any sort of judgment out of the equation, this rule is clearly reaching plays where that are probably far outside the spirit in which the rule was intended. Nuff said. Are you "seconding" my posts or calling me on something?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/13/2010 @ 11:13:44 AM
Those two statements seem to be contradictory. How is it textbook of this rule if you are claiming that it is far outside the spirit in which the rule was intended.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:25:45 AM
Because what a rule says and what a rule was probably intended for, or my personal opinions on the rule are two different things. It's the same thing that happens in lots of cases where zero tolerance laws are passed. Should 15 year olds be convicted of producing and distributing child pornography for taking pictures of their own bodies and texting it to their 15 year old significant other? No, that's crazy. Do those kids violate the letter of the law? Absolutely. It's an open and shut case as far as the law goes. They took a picture of a minor, with sexual intentions, and sent it to another person, who could in turn send it to anyone they wanted. What we might want the law to be, or the intentions behind creating said law, doesn't change what the law on the books actually says.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/13/2010 11:33:45 am

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/13/2010 @ 11:34:53 AM
Ah, well, then, my point of revisiting the rule and redefining some terms probably is a good idea then. When the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, the only thing you can really change is the letter of the law; the spirit of the law doesn't change.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:41:58 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:09:48 AM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:06:40 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:56:06 AM When does "going to the ground" become, "ok, he's on the ground with the ball and the play is over." When the refs hands are in the air. Well, the ref in the front right corner of the endzone actually signaled touchdown. If Calvin Johnson saw this (i'm not saying that he did) and then decided the play was over, he got screwed regardless of the rule. If that happened as he was down then absolutely without question, it should count. You can't penalize a guy for letting go of a ball if he's being given the official "You done good" sign. If this is the case the Lions should file a complaint with the league and be given the game. Edit: It didn't happen until after the fact...damn, not that I think there was some way they'd actually get the game back.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 09/13/2010 11:51:09 am

	Matt - 3875 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 11:58:34 AM
Did Calvin Johnson "let go of " the ball or did the ball get knocked out when he swung his arm around and the ball hit the ground? Going off memory, I thought it was the latter. Not that it changes that it was a "spirit of the rule" catch, but I get the feeling that some of you are saying he meant to let the ball go, and I'm not 100% sure of that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/13/2010 @ 12:05:21 PM
Agreed 100%, and even if he did mean to let go, he did so quickly enough to make the difference imperceptible. If you didn't see the replay and just listened to the complaints you'd think he actually sat on the ground for 30 seconds, and then was halfway off his feet when he let go of the ball that had made contact with the ground. In a perfect world where we could use reason and be consistent, this would be a TD, but I think it's being played up as not really what happened, and clearly fell under this ruling. Edit: Just to be clear, anywhere I said "let go of" I didn't mean there was any intent there. Although in the context of the comment you're replying to, I think it's an ok usage, (one mental mistake would trump and make moot whatever happened, even if he let go intentionally, or whatever else could qualify as a non catch, you can't hold him to once he's being told "the play is done," even if it was the ref that jumped the gun.) I probably should be saying "didn't maintain control" or something along those lines.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 09/13/2010 12:15:50 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/13/2010 @ 12:17:41 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:41:58 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:09:48 AM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:06:40 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:56:06 AM When does "going to the ground" become, "ok, he's on the ground with the ball and the play is over." When the refs hands are in the air. Well, the ref in the front right corner of the endzone actually signaled touchdown. If Calvin Johnson saw this (i'm not saying that he did) and then decided the play was over, he got screwed regardless of the rule. If that happened as he was down then absolutely without question, it should count. You can't penalize a guy for letting go of a ball if he's being given the official "You done good" sign. If this is the case the Lions should file a complaint with the league and be given the game. Edit: It didn't happen until after the fact...damn, not that I think there was some way they'd actually get the game back. Well darn, I've got nothing else then. Matt Wrote - Today @ 11:58:34 AM Did Calvin Johnson "let go of " the ball or did the ball get knocked out when he swung his arm around and the ball hit the ground? Going off memory, I thought it was the latter. Not that it changes that it was a "spirit of the rule" catch, but I get the feeling that some of you are saying he meant to let the ball go, and I'm not 100% sure of that. It appeared that he was sort of using his ball hand to help himself back up. That was my perception of the play. Crap, after watching the replay several times it looks like his ball hand came down sort of hard on the ground, knocking the ball away, as matt said. Every piece of my argument is falling apart. Although, I don't think in this case I was arguing that the call was wrong, but that the rule needs to be tweaked. But then again, after seeing the replay of this many times now, many times in the last couple of minutes even, it would be hard to argue that it is indeed a catch. He never really had any control of his body, and actually it seems that if he would have paid more attention to going to the ground with two hands on the ball rather than cushioning his fall with his other hand, he might have held onto the ball for the catch. Facts are stubborn things. - John Adams. here's a link to the play for those that want it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/13/2010 @ 12:20:48 PM
I agree with myself and Jeremy. Had that ref signaled touchdown prior to the ball coming loose, the Lions might have a case.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 12:23:51 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:17:41 PM He never really had any control of his body, and actually it seems that if he would have paid more attention to going to the ground with two hands on the ball rather than cushioning his fall with his other hand, he might have held onto the ball for the catch. Yeah, and it's a damn shame too, because like I said above, I bet part of him was holding it up in the air with one hand like that to actually demonstrate just how much control he had of it, not to mention often bringing it in to the body or getting the other hand involved is interpreted as "he didn't have it yet," especially if the ball rotates on any axis 1 nanometer during that process. It's one of those things that was SO "obviously" a catch it didn't occur to him he needed to be careful on proceeding from there because there was a way to make it not a catch. Edit: God damn Bears		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 09/13/2010 12:29:10 pm

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 09/13/2010 @ 12:40:36 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:20:48 PM I agree with myself and Jeremy. Had that ref signaled touchdown prior to the ball coming loose, the Lions might have a case. And since you brought it up as a "condition" personally I wouldn't care if Johnson saw that ref or not. It's 6 points as soon as those hands are in the air and since there's no way of knowing if him not having the ball anymore was because of the ground or because the play was over so he left it there, I think you have to let it stand. Especially if the call came early enough so you could claim the only reason he "rolled over" at all was because he thought "my work here is done." I mean, I guess it could be reviewed the same as any other play, so it would be hard either way. The bottom line is, though we might think this is a crappy rule, it's a fair rule, and maybe that's all that matters. If you do have control of the ball then you know it's part of the rules that you have to have it until it's as official as can be. Get back on your feet with the ball. If you don't have that kind of control, then you don't. It's like an ump with a flawed, but consistent, strike zone. As long as both (and in this case all) teams are being held to the same standard, it really doesn't matter, since a consistent strike zone is the goal above all else.* This is a rule that, despite it's flaws, can fairly consistently be applied to all teams in all games. You on the ground? Yes. Ball on the ground? Yes. Incomplete. It's going to screw a few teams once in a while on something a reasonable person would say should be a catch, but at least this is something that's easier to apply to the Lions, Packers, and Bears (oh my) equally. The Bears could have just as easily lost on a "catch" like this, but Devin Hester (I think) got up with the ball. *Well you know what I'm getting at. Obviously calling all balls or all strikes no matter where the pitch was would be "perfect consistency" but would not be a "goal" of any kind, and obviously a perfectly accurate and therefor consistent strike zone is the ideal. I'd rather have a guy that's giving 3 inches on both sides of the plate to both teams then a guy that seems to be totally guessing at pitches 1-2 inches off.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 10 times, last at 09/13/2010 1:13:03 pm

	Micah - Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land. 09/13/2010 @ 01:15:31 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:45:47 AM Also pretending officiating doesn't effect baseball is silly. They blow balls and strikes and calls on the basepath constantly. In general baseball is a more cut and dried game, maybe, but you still have the occasional "judgment call" (Did he drop the ball or lose it on the exchange, did the ball hit the small batter's size xxxxxxl jersey or not, etc. Stats wise, should that be an error or a hit, etc.) My point wasn't that poor officiating affects the game, it was that officiating contributes more to the outcome of the game in football than it does in baseball, due to the constantly fluctuating and complex rules structure. Yes, baseball has more officiating in total, due to the fact that a call is made on almost every pitch. But the total impact of those calls to the eventual outcome is smaller than in football. There is nothing in baseball that remotely compares to a 50-yard pass interference penalty that shouldn't have been called. There is one Twins game this season out of five months of play in which a blown call definitively cost them the game. There was a call like that within the first 3 hours of this NFL season, and there will be countless more before the end of the season. But my main point about what truly bothers me is that the rules change EVERY YEAR, and you need an entire pregame show devoted to explaining them so that the fans know what changed. When you try to set up the rules to play to the least common denominator, you get calls like on Sunday.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 01:31:09 PM
What's interesting is that for both of these calls we are talking about, the Bears were the beneficiary of the incomplete passes. Of course these probably aren't the only two examples over the past two years that this has happened. And furthermore, just because this one happened at the end of the game doesn't make it any more devastating or controversial than if it happened in the first quarter. I suppose the only way that you could argue that point is that they only had time for one more play, but regardless, if the call was correct, then you're just whining. But to Micah's point, this wasn't really a blown call. If you disagree with the rule that's one thing, but every analyst on the planet is saying that the ruling was correct, while many of them are saying the rule itself may need to be changed. An unfortunate call cost the Lions the game, not a blown call. If it wasn't made, Bears fans would be pointing to the same rule saying they got jobbed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 09/13/2010 1:31:21 pm

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/13/2010 @ 01:35:19 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 01:15:31 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:47 AM Also pretending officiating doesn't effect baseball is silly. They blow balls and strikes and calls on the basepath constantly. In general baseball is a more cut and dried game, maybe, but you still have the occasional "judgment call" (Did he drop the ball or lose it on the exchange, did the ball hit the small batter's size xxxxxxl jersey or not, etc. Stats wise, should that be an error or a hit, etc.) My point wasn't that poor officiating affects the game, it was that officiating contributes more to the outcome of the game in football than it does in baseball, due to the constantly fluctuating and complex rules structure. Yes, baseball has more officiating in total, due to the fact that a call is made on almost every pitch. But the total impact of those calls to the eventual outcome is smaller than in football. There is nothing in baseball that remotely compares to a 50-yard pass interference penalty that shouldn't have been called. There is one Twins game this season out of five months of play in which a blown call definitively cost them the game. There was a call like that within the first 3 hours of this NFL season, and there will be countless more before the end of the season. But my main point about what truly bothers me is that the rules change EVERY YEAR, and you need an entire pregame show devoted to explaining them so that the fans know what changed. When you try to set up the rules to play to the least common denominator, you get calls like on Sunday. Well, there's no time limit in baseball, a seemingly innocuous out call could have ended an inning earlier than otherwise which would otherwise have gone on to be a 12 run inning for the Twins, there's no way of knowing. However, the difference is that there are indeed fewer judgement calls in baseball. A person could argue that an ump uses their judgement in a ball/strike or out/safe call, but that would only be in a colloquial sense of the word. Those things ARE objective. They can be blown, sure, but the answers in baseball tend to be more concrete. There's also 162 games where things like that tend to average out, and only so much going on. In football there's probably 100 distinct "events" on every play that need a ruling on, and the rules aren't nearly as obvious. Rule changes or not, most of which are reactionary to things like this, football is definitely played in a larger gray area. I don't think rule changes are a bad thing, but you'll get no argument from me that baseball is a "simpler" game rules wise. Bad umping has a big impact on baseball games too, it's just that most things in baseball are ultimately objective, so the arguments are short. Twins Fan: That ball was touched in fair territory, landed fair by 4 inches, and the extra ump specifically added for calls like this still somehow blew the call. That should have been a ground rule double for Mauer. Yankees Fan: Yep.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/13/2010 1:49:35 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 01:35:48 PM
AAHHHHH! On ESPN they just brought up the play in the Super Bowl where the Saints converted a 2-point conversion where the receiver was diving for a ball, while coming down to the ground had the ball cross the goal line, but while coming to the ground lost the ball, and the ESPN guys themselves were confused as to why it was ruled a catch and the Johnson one was not. I brought this up during the super bowl too. I'd like that call reviewed and explained.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 09/13/2010 @ 01:39:17 PM
Well, without remembering the exact circumstances, which might be very important, it's definitely possible for calls to be blown. It doesn't necessarily mean "every nfl official alive agreed both immediately, and after 5354 replays that the Saints catch was good, so Johnson's should be a catch too." It probably just means they got the Saints call wrong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 01:42:55 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:31:09 PM Of course these probably aren't the only two examples over the past two years that this has happened. During Jennings-Gate I must have been looking into it, probably while trying to find the replay to see it for myself, and some Packer fans were in fighting about it, with some of them pointing out to others that it wasn't even the only time that call happened in that game. Apparently Greg Olson had a pretty "obvious" catch taken away. Not sure if it was a td or not. Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:31:09 PM If it wasn't made, Bears fans would be pointing to the same rule saying they got jobbed. And they'd be right.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 01:43:15 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:39:17 PM It probably just means they got the Saints call wrong. Or that there was a conspiracy afoot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 01:56:31 PM
Also, though it's somewhat off topic, and not relevant to anyone, baseball is definitely as close as it's ever been to being my favorite sport, but that's mainly because I was gutted by the Vikings what feels like just a few weeks ago, and I'm not quite ready to let them take over again. I think I'd take one Viking Superbowl over 5 Twins World Series', but even that might be more of a monkey-on-back thing than a "favorite" thing, but I would have said 10-15 world series' not that long ago.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons 09/13/2010 @ 01:57:12 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:35:19 PM Twins Fan: That ball was touched in fair territory, landed fair by 4 inches, and the extra ump specifically added for calls like this still somehow blew the call. That should have been a ground rule double for Mauer. Yankees Fan: Yep. Argh...own argument blown. This was actually not the game I was referring to. I was talking about the game against the Mariners where the M's runner was called safe on a force out at second and it allowed the winning run to score in the 10th. This play was totally overshadowed by the blown call that cost the Tigers a perfect game, even thought the Tigers still won that game and the Twins lost because of the call. So 2 games in 5 months.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 02:00:41 PM
Eh... The rule is stupid, but there is nothing that can be done about it now, except clarifying it by adding 10 more rules next year. CJ should have just tucked the ball in so there is no question about the TD. Congrats on your win Bears/Bear fans. Hopefully we can contain Vick next week! Not too worried if Kolb is in there. Plus Stafford being out 2-6 weeks is going to hurt a lot :'(		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
RUFiO1984 perfected this at 09/13/2010 2:01:41 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 02:05:02 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 01:57:12 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:35:19 PM Twins Fan: That ball was touched in fair territory, landed fair by 4 inches, and the extra ump specifically added for calls like this still somehow blew the call. That should have been a ground rule double for Mauer. Yankees Fan: Yep. Argh...own argument blown. This was actually not the game I was referring to. I was talking about the game against the Mariners where the M's runner was called safe on a force out at second and it allowed the winning run to score in the 10th. This play was totally overshadowed by the blown call that cost the Tigers a perfect game, even thought the Tigers still won that game and the Twins lost because of the call. So 2 games in 5 months. Oh, I didn't know you were actually referring to anything specific. Yeah, were were at that game, and got jobbed. It probably got a little more play than otherwise because it was part of the "how crappy have the umps been lately" package for the next couple days, but it was also way overshadowed by something that was just a stats thing, while we lost the game. Then again Sarah and I were also at an extra innings game in KC this year where the game ended because Hardy bobbled a routine grounder, then flipped to second to get the runner who was very very safe, but that wouldn't have necessarily won the game for KC. There was also a call this year where Span lost the ball going to get it out of his glove (on the exchange) and they called it a drop, though I'm not sure what came of that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 02:05:49 PM
Around the horn started off with the Calvin Johnson play. Every one of them brought up the point about having two feet in. Now I've heard Jeremy address this point, but I want someone in authority to explain why two feet, plus a knee, plus his butt, plus his left hand is negated if the ball comes out of his right hand after all of these actions take place. That's what the NFL needs to address. Why do two feet (or an elbow, or a knee, or a butt, or a shoulder) count at the sidelines and not in the middle of the field or the end zone?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 09/13/2010 @ 02:13:17 PM
because as soon as the ground is involved it's a "____ AND maintains the ball" call. In bounds, out of bounds, middle of the field, anywhere, everywhere, always. If you pictured it as a flow chart, you're never NOT passing through "Was a qualifying body part down in the field of play" question. You're just also answering "Did they fall down and go boom?" If No->Complete If yes->did he hold onto the ball throughout the play? if yes->complete if no->incomplete It's not superseding anything, it's just and additional if then else check. It's all always the same process. If you fell at the sideline the same having to hang onto it rule would apply. They aren't "negated" they're just only half the equation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/13/2010 2:38:55 pm

	Orinath - 5 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 02:24:08 PM
So, how about them Niners? *sigh*		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 02:34:07 PM
Yeah, SBT		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/13/2010 @ 07:46:14 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 01:15:31 PM There is one Twins game this season out of five months of play in which a blown call definitively cost them the game. There was a call like that within the first 3 hours of this NFL season, and there will be countless more before the end of the season. Tolbert! I read your comment and immediately asked Jeremy if you were talking about the Seattle game. Just thought I'd share.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 09:22:21 PM
Guys, this is football commentary. Keep you talk of baseball to a minimum.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/13/2010 @ 10:04:57 PM
Chiefs are fired up! I need a definite redo for this week...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Lysmal 09/13/2010 @ 10:58:37 PM
Sorry I forgot to do my picks..Will try not to let that happen again..I missed all of you..Glad you are all back...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 12:30:50 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:13:17 PM If you pictured it as a flow chart, you're never NOT passing through "Was a qualifying body part down in the field of play" question. You're just also answering "Did they fall down and go boom?" If No->Complete If yes->did he hold onto the ball throughout the play? if yes->complete if no->incomplete If we use the Jennings catch with your nifty little chart here, here's how it would go: Did they fall down during the act of making a catch? > No, or yes, depending on what your definition of "act of making the catch" is. That's where the confusion comes in, because the order of things is vitally important in both of these cases. Calvin Johnson was jumping for the ball, caught it, and then came down and fell to the ground never really having control of his body as he was coming to the ground; he was going to fall no matter what happened, and he was falling as he caught the ball; the fall took place during the act of making the catch. As I remember the jennings catch, he was running, caught the ball, took two running steps, and then got tackled and the ball came loose as he was coming to the ground; the fall took place after the act of making the catch. In my opinion, the phrase "if in the act of making a catch the player goes to the ground" does not apply, because that assumes that the "goes to the ground" occurred within the "act of making the catch", which according to what I believe constitutes the "act of making that catch", was not the case. If you have a term like this, you need to define it. An "act" has a beginning and an end. I can safely bet that this wording may have been put in place to get rid of the confusion of what constitutes a "football move", because that was a beast all its own. And now I hear that the league has a separate rulebook not available for free to the general public that has exceptions to the regular rulebook, (IE, the Super Bowl 2-point conversion had a 2nd act exception, because the player made a conscious effort to reach the ball over the goal line and therefore the act of the making the catch was over and this second act had started. This is similar to making a catch in baseball and flipping the ball to your hand to make the throw and losing the ball, the out is recorded because the losing of the ball was part of the act of making the throw.) However, the point of all this is that it should be made known to the public what these exceptions are. But we can readily avoid these discussions and controversy more if they simply define some of the terms they are using.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/14/2010 12:37:11 pm

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/14/2010 @ 01:13:58 PM
and BTW, I'm not trying to rehash Jennings-gate, but rather I'm using the two clear examples of this rule in action. Although I could poke holes in Jeremy's argument all day long if it comes to that. All he's got is that the league is in his court...psh, like that ever mattered for anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 01:25:11 PM
The contact that led to the fall was made before the second foot came down, it was all clearly a continuation of the play. It wasn't a catch "prior" to that because we wouldn't have known if he would have stayed on his feet, which is just as important. There is no "prior," it's pending. Obviously the wiggle room in this rule is indeed what counts as the act of making the catch, but I think as a whole this is better than the "football move" rule, since that can reasonably be determined what was the series of events that led to transferring possession and what was after that. IMHO the Saints call was correct, though close, because contact was not made prior to the catch, it was made after the catch and obviously intentional extension, at which point the receiver who's shoulder is down, is down. The play is over. Only after which the Colt actually kicks the ball out of his hands. In this case it would be like stripping a ball from a running back who is down already. I don't know if "exception" is the word I'd use, it's just that he had something to "do" with the ball (reach) while the other 2 plays we're talking about didn't. It seems like splitting hairs maybe, but the order of events is probably important.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 01:33:05 PM
I think the order of events is important, but you apparently didn't during the debate last year. And "exception" is the term used by the league. If the saints call is correct, then you have to be much more clear in the rule in question as to why the extra extension qualifies. In my opinion, the league has not done a very good job explaning this rule. I'm a smart guy who understands football probably better than the vast majority of the people who call themselves football fans, and still this rule confuses me. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:25:11 PM The contact that led to the fall was made before the second foot came down, it was all clearly a continuation of the play. It wasn't a catch "prior" to that because we wouldn't have known if he would have stayed on his feet, which is just as important. There is no "prior," it's pending. I disagree that it is "clearly" anything, because the rule isn't clear about that, which is why the term needs to be defined. This is precisely my point. The entire point of the rule is to split hairs between what isn't a catch and what is in .01% of all plays that this rules applies to. Since they are getting so precise, be clear with what you mean by catch or continuation, which by the way, continuation is not stated in that rule. Again, define the terms and avoid the confusion.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 01:46:29 PM
Jennings was hit before the "act" was over, which made the hit and fall part of the act, which meant he had to maintain possession, which he didn't. I actually think that one was pretty straight forward, though still probably not the type of play they had in mind when making the rule. The league did tell you, apparently. The extension qualifies because it's a second act. I have this ball, and now I'm reaching it out. Had he bobbled the ball out there, only getting it under control when it just happened to be over the goal line, and then lost it, it would have probably been called incomplete.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 02:10:46 PM
Well, they tell us the way the Catholic church tells its members about some of the teachings that the regular Catholic follower has no access to. It is not part of the rule and even ESPN was baffled when they brought it up last night comparing it to the Calvin Johnson rule.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 02:23:16 PM
What's not part of the rule?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/14/2010 @ 02:26:45 PM
The "extension" part, the "2nd act", the "exception" that some former league official mentioned.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 02:37:33 PM
Well, again I think people are reading too hard into the use of the word "exception." By definition you can't make a second act before the first act is completed. The "Act of making the catch" is over. I mean I guess in theory the rule could explicitly state "the act of making a catch is over when a second act is made" but simple logic necessitates that. Such an addition, which you could probably find lots of places to add such things, would be the logical equivalent of "The act of making the catch is ruled over when the act of making the catch is over," though I forget how one actually does those proofs. It also matters how the word was intended. The Saints play was an "exception" from the other plays in discussion because in that play a clearly conscious second act was made to get the just received ball over the goalline, where such a second act didn't take place in the others. That's not the same as saying "the saints play was an exception to the rule."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 09/14/2010 3:22:40 pm

	Micah - They just want the damn ash of that field 09/14/2010 @ 02:43:11 PM
Did anyone catch last night when there was a penalty for not letting the punter put his foot down (which is apparently a penalty now?) and the announcer went off about how stupid that was. The basically had the same argument: Announcer 1: That's ridiculous Announcer 2: It may be, but it is consistent with the rule Announcer 1: I don't care, it's stupid		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Micah perfected this at 09/14/2010 2:43:31 pm

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/14/2010 @ 03:19:18 PM
I don't know if that was a "rule now" or we've just not seen an example of that. If the point of roughing the kicker is to protect a guy in a precarious position then that would pretty much have to include not letting him land. It's basically the same thing, taking his legs out from under him. You made contact with the kicker without getting any ball, Edwards just got in there so fast that where any other player would have run into that leg on the ground he ran into it in the air. Penalty aside, the Jets definitely seem to have found something with Braylon Edwards in there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 05:09:54 PM
I think it's a rule now as opposed to 10 years ago, not sure exactly when it was modified. It was pretty lame in the same way as a batter leaning into a curveball, the punter purposefully made contact with Edwards to draw the penalty. Which isn't the punters fault, but it just leaves a bad taste. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:19:18 PM Penalty aside, the Jets definitely seem to have found something with Braylon Edwards in there. I don't know. When he didn't go over the top the next time I wasn't surprised, because fool me once shame on you, fool me again and I'll take your legs out from under you while you're jumping 4 ft in the air and it won't end well for you. Of course the Jets have no passing game so they might as well use their receivers on special teams.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 09/14/2010 @ 05:14:07 PM
Week 1 this year was apparently a lot tougher for picks than week 1 last year. I suppose that's what happens when 6 (ish?) playoff teams from last year lose.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 05:54:00 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 05:09:54 PM I don't know. When he didn't go over the top the next time I wasn't surprised, because fool me once shame on you, fool me again and I'll take your legs out from under you while you're jumping 4 ft in the air and it won't end well for you. Of course the Jets have no passing game so they might as well use their receivers on special teams. Well I think an olineman going up to get him would be just fine by them, that's half the goal. The guy would go up, the dlineman pushes him back, and the ball goes no where. He came flying in on an extra point as well. I like it because in general I dislike how special teams are treated like the "oh, and who's ever left plays there" aspect of the team. Sure there are injury risks, but, maybe with exception to the quarterback, I feel like the guys that are best at whatever should play there. If a tall fast receiver can get in there, then by all means, do that. If the best punt returner on your team is your star wideout, then do that. Sure the more plays they're in on the better chance they have of getting hurt, but by that logic why play them ever. (Of course sometimes teams put their stars back there and they do poorly or average, at which point sure, put any jersey out there to take the injury risk.) Ryan Longwell is a great kicker, but his kickoffs average the 10 yard line now-a-days. However many people don't feel getting a strong legged kicker, who didn't make the cut somewhere because of his field goal accuracy, is worth a roster spot, which I think is INSANE because a guy that can start every team 10 yards farther back, and often with no return what-so-ever, on every kick off of the season, is absolutely more valuable to a team than the 8th linebacker. I'm really not even sure how one can argue it's not. Note: The Vikings finally came around to my line of thinking, or at least they were thinking about the thinking, but the kicker they brought in rarely got the ball near the endzone himself, so I was fine with letting him go, but there was much debate in the meantime about if it was worth a spot or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 09/14/2010 5:58:37 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 06:02:38 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:54:00 PM Ryan Longwell is a great kicker, but his kickoffs average the 10 yard line now-a-days. Nowadays? That seemed to be his weakness even with the Packers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/14/2010 @ 11:16:03 PM
I can't recall where but I'm fairly certain at some point during the preseason one of them nerdy stat crunchers brought up the kickoff specialist thing and said it was worthwhile. As far as playing your stars on special teams, I'm not sure that teams get it wrong too often. Yes any given play could result in a devastating injury, but kickoffs and punts involve at lot more of guys running full steam at each other with 10+ yard head starts. I bet Charles Woodson would still make a pretty good kick returner, but he's 20 times more valuable as a CB so it doesn't really make sense. If your best punt returner on your team is your star wideout, you still should compare him to your 2nd best punt returner. If your star is only slightly better and the 2nd guy is the #6 DB, it probably makes more sense to use the DB most of the time except maybe late in game or before a half when you need a good return. Also is your star WR is your best returner by a lot, you should find another returner during the offseason. If a kickoff specialist is worth a roster spot (and I think it is, if your FG kicker can't do it) than a good returner is worth a spot too even if he doesn't have another position.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 09/15/2010 @ 10:27:55 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:54:00 PM The Vikings finally came around to my line of thinking, or at least they were thinking about the thinking, but the kicker they brought in rarely got the ball near the endzone himself, so I was fine with letting him go, but there was much debate in the meantime about if it was worth a spot or not. Yeah, that, combined with all the Viking injuries, kind of forced the Vikings to go with position depth instead, which I was fine with as well. Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:16:03 PM If a kickoff specialist is worth a roster spot (and I think it is, if your FG kicker can't do it) than a good returner is worth a spot too even if he doesn't have another position. I agree. Good thing the Vikings traded away their best return man.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 09/15/2010 @ 11:59:59 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 10:27:55 AM I agree. Good thing the Vikings traded away their best return man. I'm pretty sure Percy Harvin is still on the team.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 09/15/2010 @ 01:28:44 PM
I figured you'd say that, and you may be right, but I'll stick with my statement. Right now: Harvin + Berrian (on punts) is less than Reynaud + Reynaud. Now, I assume that if Harvin can stay healthy (which may not be as big an if as it was, but is still a factor) that he'll start returning some punts if/when it's needed, so we'll have to see how that works out. Getting away from who is better in an absolute sense, I don't know if Harvin is so much of an upgrade over Reynaud that its worth putting Harvin in there when he has durability concerns, missed all of camp, and with Rice out, will play a bigger part in the offense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 09/15/2010 1:29:58 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/15/2010 @ 01:43:27 PM
It was certainly an odd move. Hopefully they end up with at least a 3rd. That said, Harvin is the reigning Pro Bowl kick returner, and probably only wasn't getting the reps because his migraines which, knock on wood, are a thing of the past. (Though I don't think they knew that at the time, which is what makes the move odd.) Woah, you added a lot to the comment I was responding to. I agree that I don't think much of Berrian back there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 09/15/2010 1:45:20 pm

	Matt - Ombudsman 09/15/2010 @ 02:01:14 PM
Yeah, where I had "less than" now, I originally used the symbol, which of course screwed things up and made every thing after it disappear.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/15/2010 @ 06:02:14 PM
Could calvin johnson's celebration/trying to get up be considered his second act and thus the act of the catch was over and the act of getting up had started?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/15/2010 @ 10:43:09 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:02:14 PM Could calvin johnson's celebration/trying to get up be considered his second act and thus the act of the catch was over and the act of getting up had started? Alex Wrote - 09/12/2010 @ 08:00:18 PM My first reaction to seeing the Johnson play live was that it would be ruled incomplete. Although after seeing the replay 3 times I think there was a chance that they could have ruled his rolling over and putting his hands down to stand up as a "second act". And probably should have.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 09/16/2010 @ 01:21:37 AM
You guys are so rude! Did anyone even respond to this? Lysmal Wrote - 09/13/2010 @ 10:58:37 PM Sorry I forgot to do my picks..Will try not to let that happen again..I missed all of you..Glad you are all back... Glad you're back too. Although, some of us never really left. We don't shut the site down for the summer anymore. (Turns out the money we saved on the air conditioning bill didn't even cover the costs of the beach house.) As for the Calvin Johnson catch, I'm glad you are all so concerned about my fantasy team getting cheated out of 6+ points that you would debate this at such length. It's good to know you care.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - Go Lions!!! 09/16/2010 @ 06:35:54 AM
Tony Dungy thinks it's a touchdown and therefore should be a touchdown. God has spoken.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2010 @ 07:31:24 AM
I'm looking out for you, jon!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.