NFL 2010 Season Week 3 Picks

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/21/2010 @ 08:54:01 AM
TMQ on Page 2. About halfway down the page, he addresses the falling down catch/no catch issue, which reared it's ugly head against Detroit again this week. Apparently this week, the Eagles were awarded a catch in a similar play as Calvin Johnson's no catch. I didn't see the play, so I won't comment on that, but the author brings up an interesting point. Here's the rule, with boldface added: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with 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 he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." We have debated and discussed what constitutes the act of catching a pass, and I wanted terms to be defined as to what the "act of catching a passing" consisted of, and and he points out the same thing, that no one knows because the NFL won't publish its rule book. But, regardless of that, the rule as it is written says that the player must maintain control only until he touches the ground. So what exactly does this mean? How long after? To be completely honest, this makes me think that even with this rule, that Calvin Johnson play should have been a touchdown. He did maintain control after he touched the ground. There is no question about whether he maintained control after he touched the ground. The dispute, I suppose, is when the statute of "after he touches the ground" ends. The rule does not say that the player must maintain control after he "falls to the ground", just that he must maintain control after he "touches the ground". Catch, two feet, butt = touches ground with control; ball came out well after his initial touching of the ground. Looking at some of the examples that have been brought up about this rule, it seems clear to me that the NFL is being very inconsistent with how they explain certain calls using this rule. It seems to me that the ruling should only apply to plays where the ball comes out upon initial impact with the ground, which would seem likely based on the clause "after he touches the ground". If a player jumps to make a catch, lands hard on the ground and loses the ball, it's an incompletion because he didn't maintain possession after he touched the ground. If a player jumps to catch a ball, lands on his feet, gets both feet down, possibly some other body part for at least an instant, then falls and loses the ball, then I do no think the rule applies at all. We have harped on the phrases "act of catching a pass" and "with or without contact with an opponent", and "whether in the field of play or the end zone". But no one, me included, has analyzed the phrase "after he touches the ground". To me, this phrase seems to indicate an instantaneous act. If a player maintains possession after touching the ground, subsequent falling/rolling does not seem to matter. If I were to throw the Jennings play in here too, just for sake of argument and to have an example to analyze, Jennings had possession before he fell, but that should not even matter because he most certainly had possession after he touched the ground. When dealing with rules like this, much like a legal contract, the wording used is vitally important. The NFL uses the phrase "after he touches the ground" and not "after he falls to the ground". This is a very significant difference of meaning, and it seems that the latter would indicate that the player must maintain possession until he is done moving after the fall, while the former indicates that once he touches the ground, if he has possession after that initial moment, the catch stands. The former is the written rule, but it was not applied that way in the Calvin Johnson play.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 09/21/2010 9:27:32 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 10:50:19 AM
The phrases "after he touches the ground" and "after he falls to the ground" are only different if you're looking to torture language and look for loop holes. Those are essentially the same statement. If they meant knee/butt down, play instantly over, there would be no need for this portion of the rule at all, that was always the rule. And again, it doesn't mean a rule is being "inconsistently enforced" if they blew a call in the Eagles game, it just means they blew a call. Umpires blow balls and strikes, fair/fouls, and homers all the time, that doesn't mean the rules are somehow wishy washy. The point isn't to look for perfection, it's to look for what's better, and this is a better rule, in that it's easier to be consistent, than the "football move" nonsense. They can't define the "act of making a catch," and it would almost certainly make it worse if they tried, because there would be a play every game that fell outside the strict wording of that rule. A rule like this has to be open ended and left to reason at some point, and this moves it back a couple levels.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 09/21/2010 11:02:18 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/21/2010 @ 11:06:50 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:50:19 AM The phrases "after he touches the ground" and "after he falls to the ground" are only different if you're looking to torture language and look for loop holes. This isn't torturing anything at all, especially given my examples of a guy losing control upon impact with the ground and a guy who maintains possession for a few seconds after he touches the ground and then loses the ball after rolling around a little bit. I don't think I'm looking for loopholes at all. These seems pretty clear, otherwise they would have used "after he falls" instead. I'm trying to avoid arguments from silence, and only go with what the rule states. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:50:19 AM If they meant knee/butt down, play instantly over, there would be no need for this portion of the rule at all, that was always the rule. Again, if he makes a catch and instantly fall (butt/knee touching) and that fall is what jars the ball lose, then he didn't maintain possession after he touches the ground. The other example he clearly DID maintain possession after he touches the ground. If we are enforcing the letter of the law, then the letter of the law seems pretty clear that you only need to maintain possession after touching the ground. It makes no mention whatsoever of needing to maintain possession through the fall; refs seem to be concluding that on their own. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:50:19 AM And again, it doesn't mean a rule is being "inconsistently enforced" if they blew a call in the Eagles game, it just means they blew a call. The point isn't to look for perfection, it's to look for what's better, and this is a better rule, in that it's easier to be consistent, than the "football move" nonsense. The NFL reviews most of these calls after each week, and if upon review they claim that the call was correct, this is not "they blew the call"; instead it is that they are being inconsistent. Again, based on the exact wording of the rule, Calvin Johnson did maintain possession after he touched the ground. The NFL has stated that the call was correct to rule incomplete pass, but according to the exact wording of the they are not applying it correctly. If it's not being inconsistent, then the NFL must have no interest in actually getting the calls correct; They might as well not waste the time in reviewing the calls after the fact. Ask yourself this question: Did Calvin Johnson maintain possession after he touched the ground? The answer to me seems an obvious yes, yet the league ruled that the call was correct. I'm not looking for perfection, but "better" would be actually enforcing the rule as it's written, which in this case seems to be not the case.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/21/2010 @ 11:17:06 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:06:50 AM Ask yourself this question: Did Calvin Johnson maintain possession after he touched the ground? No. Timeline of one fluid act: Catch -> Begin Fall -> touch ground -> slide on ground out of control -> get 70 more body parts down -> lose football He lost the football after he touched the ground. It's the same thing. You have to "touch the ground" to fall. Those are interchangeable statements. If the intent was the "impact" jars the ball loose then that would have been easy to state, especially given they already have such clauses for fumbles. It doesn't say anything about the impact causing the incompletion, all it says is "You fall, keep ball".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/21/2010 @ 11:26:59 AM
By the way TMQ got it backwards. It was ruled incomplete, after review, perfectly consistent with the Johnson catch. http://www.nfl.com/videos/philadelphia-eagles/09000d5d81aa7bab/Catch-or-no-catch		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/21/2010 @ 11:28:48 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:17:06 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:06:50 AM Ask yourself this question: Did Calvin Johnson maintain possession after he touched the ground? No. Timeline of one fluid act: Catch -> Begin Fall -> touch ground -> slide on ground out of control -> get 70 more body parts down -> lose football He lost the football after he touched the ground. It's the same thing. You have to "touch the ground" to fall. Those are interchangeable statements. If the intent was the "impact" jars the ball loose then that would have been easy to state, especially given they already have such clauses for fumbles. It doesn't say anything about the impact causing the incompletion, all it says is "You fall, keep ball". For one thing, your flow chart doesn't agree with your conclusion. there are 4 events that took place before the ball came loose. What's the limit? If it said "after you touch the ground and threw the fall" then I'd agree. But what it actually says is "if you are falling, keep the ball after you make contact with (touch) the the ground." If they meant it to be through the fall, then they should reword the rule. I think we can agree that at best the word is poorly worded, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people going so nuts about this. Especially since there have been so many variations of rulings with respect to this rule. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:17:06 AM If the intent was the "impact" jars the ball loose then that would have been easy to state, especially given they already have such clauses for fumbles. This is sort of my point. If their point was to maintain possession through the fall, then it should be worded as such, since they do get specific in other areas.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/21/2010 @ 11:29:20 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:26:59 AM By the way TMQ got it backwards. It was ruled incomplete, after review, perfectly consistent with the Johnson catch. http://www.nfl.com/videos/philadelphia-eagles/09000d5d81aa7bab/Catch-or-no-catch Stupid ESPN, getting me all worked up. I looked for a while for that video, but couldn't find it. Well, some of my argument then is moot now, it helps to have all the facts I suppose. I thought I had a pretty sound argument though. And I still think I'm correct on the wording issue, but II suppose they are being consistent in some cases. I still have a problem with the "secondary act" that made the Saints Super Bowl 2pt conversion a catch and not the johnson catch.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/21/2010 11:31:15 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/21/2010 @ 11:33:45 AM
Well, it could be argued that the eagles player had the ball jarred loose by the fall, which if nothing else would be consistent with the argument I'm trying to make.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/21/2010 11:34:07 am

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/21/2010 @ 11:37:07 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:28:48 AM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:17:06 AM If the intent was the "impact" jars the ball loose then that would have been easy to state, especially given they already have such clauses for fumbles. This is sort of my point. If their point was to maintain possession through the fall, then it should be worded as such, since they do get specific in other areas. I think it's worded perfectly fine in that regard. It doesn't say anything about impact, so it automatically means throughout the fall, as there's nothing else for it to mean. The don't know the exact wording of the rule but these are perfectly in line with the rule "keep the ball after you make contact with (touch) the the ground." as there's nothing in there than implies CAUSE, only a chain of events. Ie Did he touch the ground at some point? Yes. Ok, and after that happened did the ball come loose at any point during the actions that were a natural continuation of that fall? Yes. Well, no catch then.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 09/21/2010 11:44:40 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 11:47:47 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:37:07 AM I think it's worded perfectly fine in that regard. It doesn't say anything about impact, so it automatically means throughout the fall, as there's nothing else for it to mean. The don't know the exact working of the rule but these are perfectly in line with the rule "keep the ball after you make contact with (touch) the the ground." as there's nothing in there than implies CAUSE, only a chain of events. Ie Did he touch the ground at some point? Yes. Ok, and after that happened did the ball come loose at any point? Yes. Well, no catch then. There's nothing? Umm, it could mean after he touches the ground. If they meant that he has to maintain possession through the fall, then it should be said as such. Since it doesn't say as such, then it shouldn't be enforced that way. They could very easily add the words to be in-line with their intent, but the letter of the law says otherwise. I think you are making some pretty big jumps, especially with saying "did the ball come loose at any point". The "any point" is way way too broad. I maintain that Johnson DID maintain possession after he touched the ground. It wasn't until he rolled to his front and used his ball hand to help himself back up that he lost it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/21/2010 @ 12:08:27 PM
Yes, it could mean "after he touches the ground," that's my point. I'm not adding extra implied meaning. I'm reading that only for what it says. Johnson touched the ground and, after that, lost the ball. It just says "after." There is no where in the rule that says anything about the fall causing anything, jarring the ball lose, the impact of the ground actually being the thing that results in you not having the football. It. just. says. after. There's no "jump" or language twisting. They very well could have meant the impact itself had something to do with it, but they would need to specify that if that's what they meant, as THAT would be the additional clause. (Which, by the way, would just be one more thing they had to make a judgment on on top of the current "was this one act") All it defines as it stands is a time line. You're saying they should have clarified a rule against some potential thing they might not have seen coming. Rules are what rules are, defining everything they aren't would be an endless fools errand. It doesn't specifically state in the rule book that completing a pass to a fan in the 10th row of the crowd isn't worth 17 points either. That doesn't mean we should be confused as to what to do if the ball ends up there. "Does that count? I dont know, I mean if you look at this rule it says player, but it doesn't specify anything about being on the roster, and if you look at this rule here and this there out of bounds is clearly defined as outside of those white lines, but down on the field of play. I think we might have to count it!" Also, I preemptively assumed you'd read way too far into my use of the phrase "any point" and wouldn't grant me the context of our ongoing conversation and clarified.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 09/21/2010 12:14:02 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 02:09:22 PM
Ok, so we're accepting that all it says is "after", at "any point", and so on. My point is that after could mean the instant, and I suppose it could mean after the player stops rolling to the ground and comes to rest. I'm saying that if they meant that the player needs to maintain possession through the fall, that is very different than a rule stating he needs to maintain possession merely "after he touches the ground." Because, then, I am correct in saying that Johnson's play should have been a catch, because he absolutely maintained possession after he made contact with the ground. He maintained possession after his feet touched the ground. He maintained possession after his butt touched the ground. He maintained possession after his non-ball hand touched the ground. He lost possession after his 2nd hand with the ball in it touched the ground. So, then, yes, he did indeed maintain possession after he touched the ground. Besides, if it's the case that you have to maintain possession after every part of you touches the ground and you have stopped moving, simply using the word "after" is very very vague. I don't think I'm being too over picky here. The fact that we are having this discussion and that fact that it seems to come up in discussion several times a week since the Johnson play suggests that there are a lot of people that seem to think it is more confusing than it needs to be. I'm not trying to be ridiculous, so your example of passing to the fan has no merit with me . I don't think I took "any point" too far at all, either. I merely said it was "too broad" of a term, especially considering the ruling on the Saints 2-point conversion and the secondary act, which brings a whole nother (yup, I did it) piece of the debate into play. Should I have said it was "slightly ambiguous", or "a tad interperative"? *Speaking of taking things out of context, I could have said "at any point? What if he falls to the ground and bounces from the endzone up into the stands and lands on a fan in the 10th row and then loses the ball?" *I wrote this and then found what you meant when you said you clarified. Shame on you for assuming I would take things out of context. That doesn't happen on this site!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 03:05:32 PM
Sure, it's confusing lots of people, but I think that's mainly because they're looking to obfuscate, hyper-extend, and over interpret something that's really pretty cut and dried. Johnson did not maintain control of the ball after he touched the ground. Plain and simple. Yes, he touched, and touched, and touched, and touched, and slid, and touched, he also then proceeded to lose the ball. So, he lost the ball after he touched the ground. Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:09:22 PM Besides, if it's the case that you have to maintain possession after every part of you touches the ground and you have stopped moving. Indeed, or you do something to establish "I'm in control here" as opposed to momentum/gravity/etc. If Johnson gets halfway up and drops the ball the Bears would be 1 and 1, but as it stands it was too close to call if the roll and hand slamming the ground was intentional, and it almost doesn't matter because players need to know the rule and be more careful. He might indeed have intentionally decided to get up to celebrate before anything was called, but if that's the case, them's the breaks. Don't put the cart before the horse and we're not having this conversation. When it's all said and done, yes, what qualifies as a second act certainly could be debated, although I don't see anything to quibble in any of the calls we've discussed thus far, but there's always going to be something to quibble about, since you're never going to be able to define every possible set of circumstances that would be a catch, or non catch. This inserts about as much objectivity into a forever subjective problem as possible. Though I was hard on this rule back in Jennings-Gate, and maybe even at the beginning of this, I'm starting to have less and less of a problem with it, because the solution can't be perfect, it can just be better, and this is better than the "football move" stuff.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/21/2010 @ 03:25:25 PM
I'm not trying to obfuscate, hyper-extend, or over interpret anything. I'm trying to interpret exactly what's written, which happens to be apparently vague. The very fact that I can see it meaning the moment a player touches the ground and you think that it means every act of going to the ground and no longer doing anything that puts you any more on the ground or whatever is exactly my point. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:05:32 PM Johnson did not maintain control of the ball after he touched the ground. Plain and simple. Yes, he touched, and touched, and touched, and touched, and slid, and touched, he also then proceeded to lose the ball. So, he lost the ball after he touched the ground. That's sort of my point, too. He lost the ball after lots of things happened that put him in possession of the ball. Obviously this is a matter of opinion, and I don't think either of us is going to change theirs, but I still think that Johnson did what he needed to do to establish that he was in possession of that ball. My opinion of this situation/rule is that it should be moreso similar to how you determine if a player was out of bounds when making a catch: two feet? butt? knee? control of the ball?. Because if you look at this way, you can have two tips of the toes on the ground and have it be a catch if you are going outside the field of play, but if you do the Johnson routine it's incomplete. If that happens in the middle of the field, I think it should be a fumble. I agree that there are places where this rule can and should be used. But I don't think the Johnson play, and for that matter, the Jennings play are good examples of where to apply this rule. The Deshaun Jackson play from yesterday is probably a more straight forward example of when the rule should apply; as subtle as the differences might be. I'm not sure if I said this on this site or if I said it to someone else, but the fact that there is a rule that says that Calvin Johnson didn't score a touchdown on that catch should suggest that it is a bad rule, or at least poorly applied/worded.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/21/2010 3:30:39 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 03:37:18 PM
Oh, and just so everyone knows, the act of falling to the ground and touching the ground are apparently the same subtle difference as throwing a pass to a player on the field and throwing a pass to a fan in the stands. I'll take note of that.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/21/2010 @ 03:38:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:25:25 PM If Johnson had been running down the field and something like happened, he would have been ruled down by contact No. It should still have been ruled incomplete, just like Jackson's play was. As would a play on the sidelines. All you need is two toes while controlling the ball, if you don't fall. If you are off your feet, and thus establish being in the field of play by touching the ground with an alternate qualifying body part, you need to maintain control throughout the current course of action. All the time. Anywhere on the field. I'm not trying to be condescending, or just be argumentative, I really don't see what the confusion on the issue is for people. Not liking it, maybe, though I would suggest then that they try to come up with an alternate rule.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 03:41:55 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:18 PM Oh, and just so everyone knows, the act of falling to the ground and touching the ground are apparently the same subtle difference as throwing a pass to a player on the field and throwing a pass to a fan in the stands. I'll take note of that. Seeing as my whole point is that there is no difference between those two in the context of this rule, I highly doubt that was the point of the throwing a pass to a fan comment. The point is read what it says, not what it doesn't say, because it doesn't say lots of things.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 09/21/2010 @ 03:46:46 PM
Ahhhh... I remember 2 years ago, the 0-16 season, when the Lions were beating the Vikings before the Refs gift wrapped a phantom PI call that set up the Longwell FG with 9 secs left in the clock. Hopefully, it goes the other way this year		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 03:49:00 PM
I don't think that's what happened.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 03:57:31 PM
Yeah, whether or not the PI was legit, it happened with 2:22 on the clock, on second down, when the Vikings had all 3 timeouts, and only needed 40ish yards to get the game winning attempt in. They drove the ball before and after the penalty, before playing it safe and eating the clock for a chip shot FG. So, who knows what would have happened without it, but it certainly wasn't the case that the Vikings got some 70 yard PI call when they heaved up a hail mary with 11 seconds left on the clock, so I'm not so sure how "gift wrapped" you can claim it was.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/21/2010 4:01:36 pm

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 04:03:21 PM
I am only kidding, the Lions would have found a way to screw it up that year. Just trying to push some buttons before the big game :P		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 04:07:15 PM
The Lions do bring it to the Vikings no matter how good or bad the teams are, plus a loss would add to the Favre and the Vikings are doomed and Aaron Rodgers is a perfect quarterback and all around human national narrative, so I fully expect it to happen.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 04:21:16 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:41:55 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:18 PM Oh, and just so everyone knows, the act of falling to the ground and touching the ground are apparently the same subtle difference as throwing a pass to a player on the field and throwing a pass to a fan in the stands. I'll take note of that. Seeing as my whole point is that there is no difference between those two in the context of this rule, I highly doubt that was the point of the throwing a pass to a fan comment. The point is read what it says, not what it doesn't say, because it doesn't say lots of things. Reading what it says: "after he touches the ground". I don't think I am going to far into it by thinking that it should mean maintaining possession after he touches the ground. That's actually what it says.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/21/2010 4:25:03 pm

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/21/2010 @ 04:24:32 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:21:16 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:41:55 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:18 PM Oh, and just so everyone knows, the act of falling to the ground and touching the ground are apparently the same subtle difference as throwing a pass to a player on the field and throwing a pass to a fan in the stands. I'll take note of that. Seeing as my whole point is that there is no difference between those two in the context of this rule, I highly doubt that was the point of the throwing a pass to a fan comment. The point is read what it says, not what it doesn't say, because it doesn't say lots of things. Reading what it says: "after he touches the ground". I don't think I am going to far into it by thinking that it should mean maintaining possession after he touches the ground. That is what it means. It other words, you can read it, more or less, as "maintaining possession as he touches the ground" all you want. It says "after."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/21/2010 4:26:01 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 04:26:41 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:24:32 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:21:16 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:41:55 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:18 PM Oh, and just so everyone knows, the act of falling to the ground and touching the ground are apparently the same subtle difference as throwing a pass to a player on the field and throwing a pass to a fan in the stands. I'll take note of that. Seeing as my whole point is that there is no difference between those two in the context of this rule, I highly doubt that was the point of the throwing a pass to a fan comment. The point is read what it says, not what it doesn't say, because it doesn't say lots of things. Reading what it says: "after he touches the ground". I don't think I am going to far into it by thinking that it should mean maintaining possession after he touches the ground. That is what it means. I know what the word "after" means. He fell asleep after he touched the ground too. probably about 8 hours after, but after nonetheless. The question is how long after. The rule is ambiguous. "Through the fall" might be reasonable; so put it in the rule and eliminate these questions! Otherwise, you are left with a questionable rule that lots of people are upset about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/21/2010 4:29:30 pm

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/21/2010 @ 04:29:42 PM
Well that's where the "act of making the catch" portion of the rule comes into play, that doesn't change what the other part does or doesn't say. Edit: The rule is necessarily ambiguous, the issue at hand is that you're arguing with the fairly unambiguous part of the rule.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/21/2010 4:31:50 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/21/2010 @ 04:36:06 PM
Ok, then, does the act of making the catch not end until the fall is over? Because that brings me back to my first point from last week. Give me some scenarios (not you, the NFL)as to what the "act of making the catch" actually means. If you are falling, does the act of making the catch include the fall? Or does it end when you are in possession, having a firm grasp of, the ball? I don't need a cut and dry "this is the only thing that constitutes the act of a catch" type of definition, but honestly, it gets quite vague and ambiguous in some cases.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/21/2010 4:36:49 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 04:40:13 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:29:42 PM Edit: The rule is necessarily ambiguous, the issue at hand is that you're arguing with the fairly unambiguous part of the rule. Act of making the catch - fairly ambiguous. *After he touches the ground - open to interpretation in terms of timing. *I totally messed up the wording of the comment, I changed it slightly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 09/21/2010 4:51:54 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/21/2010 @ 04:48:36 PM
As I am reading your link of the definition of the word "after" and doing some other searching in dictionary.com, it appears that the word after when used in this manner can refer to something that happens immediately in sequence to a previous event (b comes after a in the alphabet), or somewhat open to interpretation (we're not going to bed until after we eat dinner). One is an immediate sequence, the other is simply that one will happen and then the other will happen at some subsequent moment in time. If you read it the first way, Johnson scored a touchdown. If you read it the second way, it's possible to conclude that since he lost the ball subsequent to touching the ground, it's incomplete. How about that?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 09/21/2010 @ 05:00:46 PM
The thing is they could give us 1000 scenarios and have 5 plays that fall outside that happen the next week. Again, think of it this way, as I think it weeds out some of the confusion. Was it a catch*: 1) Did the player get a qualifying body part in the field of play with possession of the ball? 2) a) Did the player fall at any point during the catch? b) If so, did he maintain control of the ball? You are ALWAYS answering both questions for completed passes. #2 is just easy if he doesn't fall. There's no overrides. There's no "this only applies sometimes." There's never any possession until both questions can be answered, so it's sort of silly to make the point that so and so has possession except for "blah" if "blah" is just as important in determining possession as anything else. And really, now we're tearing apart what "after" means? Arg. I never said after couldn't mean immediately after. After, all by itself, could both mean 12 attoseconds after he touches the ground, and 30 quadrillion years later. That was never the argument, the argument was there was no reason to assume there was an implied time frame based on reading between the lines on those 5 words, when the time frame is defined, albeit ambiguously, elsewhere. Yes, after can mean immediate, forever, and anything in between. That's sort of the point, it can mean anything. You were the one insisting "it must mean ____." *And no I'm not claiming this is some foolproof catch all, and yes I know "during the catch" is open to interpretation, but this is a good starting point for the mindset to be in, which is both are of equal importance and that it's not one set of rules here and another there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 09/21/2010 5:08:59 pm

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/21/2010 @ 05:05:49 PM
Though I'll grant you that had the window of time not been defined elsewhere it would by necessity mean "as he touches the ground" because otherwise 2 seconds and 2 years are just as arbitrarily "after"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/21/2010 @ 05:11:16 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:00:46 PM Was it a catch: 1) Did the player get a qualifying body part in the field of play with possession of the ball? 2) a) Did the player fall at any point during the catch? b) If so, did he maintain control of the ball? Since we have discussed the "well, they wouldn't have put that in the rule otherwise" parts of the rule, so I will add this. Why is the "after he touches the ground" even part of the rule then? Wouldn't it be assumed it was through the fall if it just said "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball"? Why do they add that phrase if not to have some specific reason that might indicate that getting part of your body down means possession? And, if that is the premise, then where the heck does this second act come in? Was it a catch: 1) Did the player get a qualifying body part in the field of play with possession of the ball? 2) a) Did the player fall at any point during the catch? a.1) did he maintain control of the ball? a.2) did he attempt some other motion while falling? Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:05:49 PM Though I'll grant you that had the window of time not been defined elsewhere it would by necessity mean "as he touches the ground" because otherwise 2 seconds and 2 years are just as arbitrarily "after" and the circle continues, because why does the act of making the catch extend through the fall? the window of time is not defined by "act of making the catch", at least not well, because I contend that the act of making a catch can end with 2 feet, butt, hand (as do a number of other people I've heard argue this point, not necessarily highly credible people, but national figures).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/21/2010 @ 05:23:56 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:00:46 PM You were the one insisting "it must mean ____." I'm not insisting anything of the sort, and my argument all day has been the same point. I'm pointing out that the wording they use could be interpreted differently. Johnson had possession after he touched the ground. If the rule was "after the fall" or "through fall", then I would certainly say he did not have possession. But, in a very reasonable interpretation of the wording they used, Johnson did very much have possession after he touched the ground. At some point in the events he did lose possession, but that does not negate the fact that he had possession after he touched the ground.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 09/21/2010 @ 05:24:20 PM
The it extends through the fall because it's defined to include the fall. That is what it is. You're basically asking why a rule added for what to do if the player falls as a result of attempting to catch a pass applies when a player falls attempting to catch a pass. Without "after he touches the ground" in there it could read like he must maintain the ball while falling. "After he touches the ground" clarifies that it's not possession once you hit, you still have to maintain control. It makes it less ambiguous, not more. "After he touches the ground" for all intents and purposes WAS the rule change, before you were down and possession was determined by other things.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 05:28:53 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:23:56 PM But, in a very reasonable interpretation of the wording they used, Johnson did very much have possession after he touched the ground. At some point in the events he did lose possession, but that does not negate the fact that he had possession after he touched the ground. But again, the rule itself IS determining possession, possession is pending the entire process. You can't have possession before you have possession. It doesn't matter that Johnson did 8,234,239,934,554,452,423,482,712 things that would have otherwise qualified for possession, because he did one thing that didn't, and that negates everything else.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/21/2010 @ 05:36:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:24:20 PM Without "after he touches the ground" in there it could read like he must maintain the ball while falling. "After he touches the ground" clarifies that it's not possession once you hit, you still have to maintain control. It makes it less ambiguous, not more. This makes no sense. Even still, there's this. The first thing to touch the ground was his feet, and he maintained possession after his feet touched the ground. Is that not enough? Well, then his butt touched the ground, and continued to maintain possession at that point. Still not enough? Well, his hand and elbow (the non-ball hand) hit the ground, and he still maintained possession. But it would seem by this rule that possession is being defined by maintaining control of the ball after touching the ground. My previous paragraph states that. He met the requirements of the very rule three times before he violated the rule, but at that point it shouldn't have mattered, because the play at that point would be over. The rule determines possession, I agree, and he had possession based on the touching the ground with possession. If you are saying that he can't be "maintaining possession" because he doesn't yet have possession, then the rule itself is a sham. The rule would then be saying "before he has possession he needs to maintain something which he cannot have yet because he has not met requirements to maintain the thing we are saying he needs to maintain."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 05:40:41 PM
I'm off of work today, what's your excuse for spending all day on the can?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/21/2010 @ 05:48:01 PM
I've been trying to come up with a good analogy, but I can't really, I think this is the best I can do thus far. It's like if you had a really hard teacher who graded on a curve but scored everything as "You got 100% right, or you get a 0." It might not cause a ruckus in most cases because people were getting half the questions wrong, but every once in a while there would be a kid who got a 99% that wound up with the same 0 as someone who got 40%. Was that conducive to whatever goal that teacher had in mind with that crazy scheme? No, probably not, but it's the same for everyone, and ultimately you're only competing with everyone else anyway. That said, the guy who got the 99% still clearly applies to the rule just as much as the 40%. It's all or nothing. It doesn't matter how many questions he got right, or how close he got, because he got one wrong and that's all that matters, given the situation. Furthermore it would make no sense for the teacher to award points in their score book until all the questions are graded, because the student could have 99 parts right and still miss one. The only thing different between blowing question 3 vs question 100 is the grading process is quicker if a student blows it early. Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:36:09 PM If you are saying that he can't be "maintaining possession" because he doesn't yet have possession, then the rule itself is a sham. The rule would then be saying "before he has possession he needs to maintain something which he cannot have yet because he has not met requirements to maintain the thing we are saying he needs to maintain." You have to maintain control throughout the process in order to determine if you gained possession. There's nothing circular about that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 09/21/2010 5:53:10 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2010 @ 06:02:30 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:48:01 PM You have to maintain control throughout the process in order to determine if you gained possession. There's nothing circular about that. Ok, point for Jeremy on this point, because the rule actually says "must maintain control", not what I was saying "must maintain possession". Your analogy makes sense. It's just a nuanced difference. You must maintain control after you touch the ground. For how long? After what touches the ground. If you maintain control after your feet touch touch the ground, but lose control after your but touches the ground is it not a catch? Why not? If that's the case, it sounds like the real intent is that you must maintain control through entirety of the fall, but I'm not focusing on what it doesn't say; I'm focusing on what it does say, which is touch. "Touch" can imply an instantaneous action. And I'm not trying to rip apart each word. But that's why i'm saying it's nuanced. was he falling? yes ----> did he maintain control after he touched the ground ----> his feet and butt touched and he maintained control, possession is established, play over (no subsequent actions matter at that point). In your analogy, it would be like the guy who got 100 questions right, but then when he brings it up the teacher adds one more question that he doesn't know the answer to. He met the requirements already so the test should be over.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 09/21/2010 @ 08:09:08 PM
Touch can imply an instant action, but it doesn't have to, and there's no reason to think it should, if not specified, especially if paired with the word after, and a specific window of time. The time window is "the act of making the catch" if you lose it after your butt hits assuming the natural evolution of the play led to that fall, then no, it's not a completion. If the play was automatically over, which was more or less the old rule, it would say that. The "old way" was kind of the opposite, and I think this way is better. The old way you could make fairly straight forward standing catches, but not make a move, and not get the catch, meanwhile you could dive for a ball, have the tip of it for 3/16ths of a second while your knee was dragging and it was occasionally called a completion. This turns that around, adds a little more objectivity, and even if the occasional 99 gets hosed, you're all getting graded the same. Rewatching the Jackson play, it was close, and probably could have gone either way. You could make a case no event, contact, whatever, that led to his falling happened until after his second foot was already down, at which point, as in your other scenarios, possession is established prior to whatever else happens. (In other words the Jennings play was hunched over foot contact foot, and this was fully upright and awfully close to foot foot contact.) But it's close enough, and especially in light of the fact that it was against the Lions, I think the call was ok the way it went. All the other instances are pretty straight forward to me. I don't mean this to sound condescending, as I'm not an expert, to an extent I think you might just be playing devils advocate (not to mention isn't necessarily directed at you in particular), and there are lots of things that I don't "get" but just in general in terms of the mass confusion; Maybe this is one of those things, like when you use affect vs. when you use effect, and proper use of a semicolon, that someone could explain forever and I would still get it wrong, because you either kind of just "get it" or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/21/2010 8:12:32 pm

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/21/2010 @ 08:47:58 PM
And yeah, I realize there's no pompous "I'm right and you're wrong" way to say that, but the fact remains either way that there are many of examples of things that most people would be "confused by" which doesn't mean the topic is confused/muddled/wishy-washy/etc. I think that people, as individuals, and as a group, can easily confuse "confusion" with "complexity," and are quick to dismiss things as "I don't understand, so there must be a problem with it."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 09/21/2010 @ 08:54:34 PM
I texted my brothers and Matt and Jon to let them know the Vikings saved their season by signing Hank Baskett, and so far have received as responses: "I hate the Vikings," "5-11," and "Great." He might not help for jack, but at least they're adding depth to the WAGs by adding a former Playboy bunny. Unfortunately it will a super annoying, really not all that hot, one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/21/2010 8:55:47 pm

	mbaraclo 09/22/2010 @ 10:13:37 PM
So, do I throw in the towel this early in the season for going .500 or chalk it up to bad Karma? Who 'da thought Dallas and the Vikings would be 0-2 and the Chiefs and Bucs would be sitting on 2-0. Either way, my boys aren't playin' nice! I figure if the Texans win, my record improves. If the Cowboys win, I feel good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 09/23/2010 @ 12:57:00 AM
I would just like to mention how Matt, Scott, Sarah and Jeremy are at the (near) bottom of the totem poll in picks. You guys need to step it up man. Come on, I'm beating all 4 of ya for the season thus far!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/23/2010 @ 07:16:54 AM
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 12:57:00 AM I would just like to mention how Matt, Scott, Sarah and Jeremy are at the (near) bottom of the totem poll in picks. You guys need to step it up man. Come on, I'm beating all 4 of ya for the season thus far! I usually just copy Jeremy's picks anyway, so when he's bad, I'm bad.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 09/23/2010 @ 07:49:44 PM
i hope your being sarcastic....if you arent dont you think it kind of defeats the whole purpose for even picking on nutcan? If your not being serious, is there a legit reason as to why all 4 cheifs of nutcan are more FAIL than everyone else?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 09/23/2010 @ 11:32:21 PM
Ever hear of small sample size?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/24/2010 @ 12:37:35 AM
That and is there any reason to think we should be better than everyone else? (Not to mention it doesn't even seem to be true. We're right in the middle.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/24/2010 12:39:25 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2010 @ 06:51:40 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:37:35 AM That and is there any reason to think we should be better than everyone else? You're not better than everyone else?!?!? And no, I don't steal Jeremy's picks. The absurdity of that statement is in the fact that my career winning percentage is WAAAAAAAY higher than his.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 09/25/2010 6:53:51 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2010 @ 07:03:39 AM
I'm torn about who to pick in the Vikings-Lions game. On one hand, the Vikings looked bad, but they were playing two good teams and still almost won. On the other hand, the Lions actually have looked pretty good (on Lion standards) against some so-so teams, and they too almost won both of their games. Favre is looking more and more like 50 every week, and believe me, I am not one to find negatives about this guy. But considering that Favre is thought to be the key to the Vikings success, his Forever Young transformation from young and youthful to old and grey can't bode well for a team that is losing receivers left and right as well. I'm sure they'll right the ship soon, but I don't think this is the team to fear like they were last season.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Lysmal - 13 Posts 09/25/2010 @ 09:33:07 PM
Sorry I missed less week again..But I was in the hospital..I didn't get to read all the things you all had to say...		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/25/2010 @ 09:59:37 PM
Lysmal Wrote - Today @ 09:33:07 PM Sorry I missed less week again..But I was in the hospital..I didn't get to read all the things you all had to say... Hope everything is ok. I didn't even read all the things THIS week between Jeremy and Scott because it just went on and on and on and on.....		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 09/25/2010 @ 11:35:19 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:59:37 PM Lysmal Wrote - Today @ 09:33:07 PM Sorry I missed less week again..But I was in the hospital..I didn't get to read all the things you all had to say... Hope everything is ok. I didn't even read all the things THIS week between Jeremy and Scott because it just went on and on and on and on..... Yeah I know, I just kinda found the whole thing to be a little... LONG.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/26/2010 @ 06:31:33 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:59:37 PM Lysmal Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:33:07 PM Sorry I missed less week again..But I was in the hospital..I didn't get to read all the things you all had to say... Hope everything is ok. I didn't even read all the things THIS week between Jeremy and Scott because it just went on and on and on and on..... Upon further review, it reminded me of the fight between Peter and the giant chicken. You think it's funny at first because it's like "man, this is actually going on for a long time." And then it goes on longer and longer, and you realize, "hmm, what else is on."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/26/2010 8:06:24 am

	Lysmal 09/26/2010 @ 01:28:26 PM
Thank you, Sarah...Yes everything is fine now...And yes thing's got a little out of hand, but that's okay..If it get's to be to much for one setting I'll just come back later to read the rest...It's half time and my Chiefs are ahead 10 to 3...Yea!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - Go Lions!!! 09/26/2010 @ 02:27:24 PM
this game is ridiculous...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/26/2010 @ 02:55:32 PM
The Lions suck. They have had so many opportunities in this game, and that was even before the Vikings went up by 2 touchdowns. They just suck.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	RUFiO1984 - Go Lions!!! 09/26/2010 @ 03:13:04 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:55:32 PM The Lions suck. They have had so many opportunities in this game, and that was even before the Vikings went up by 2 touchdowns. They just suck. Whoa! Take it easy... backup quarterback (yes he sucks) and an injured Jahvid Best out the whole second half... Our secondary is a POS though. But I am still happy with the development of this team and should be pretty dominant next year after cleaning up the secondary. Give us a break though.......		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/26/2010 @ 03:17:37 PM
I demand an investigation in Pittsburgh. Last time I checked QB time machines were illegal. Batch hasn't had a 100+ rating since 2006.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Lysmal - 13 Posts 09/26/2010 @ 03:30:44 PM
Way to go Chiefs.. It's been a long time comeing...I hate that we have a bye next week..To early...So happy for our team.....		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 09/27/2010 @ 05:31:56 PM
IM REALLY EXCITED about monday night football tonight. Im going to be glued to the TV :D		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/27/2010 @ 05:50:15 PM
George Blanda died today. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5622590		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/27/2010 @ 08:47:14 PM
who had 3:45 in 2nd qtr in the "when will they bring up the stat about the number of Chicago qbs since Favre started his streak" pool? Because you just won.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott perfected this at 09/27/2010 8:47:30 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/27/2010 @ 08:59:21 PM
To be fair they also worked Aaron Rodgers into it to help fulfill their quota of 90% of the air time being spent talking about him.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/27/2010 @ 11:20:35 PM
Really? Really?!?!? wtf Packers That last PI was kind of crap. You can't under throw the ball by 5 yards and then get PI when the defensive player turns around to see the ball and then the offensive player runs into him as much as anything. James Jones has 5 fumbles on 109 catches for 21.8 catches per fumble. DD has 6 on 665 for 110.8 cpf and Jennings has 3 on 256 for 85.3 cpf. If I have to hear one more time this season that Jones would be a #1 on most teams I'm going to have to go my room and punch a pillow or something. Really??? 500 false start and holding penalties? Couldn't hold on to the interception at the end? Rodgers goes 9-9 on a drive and you end up with a blocked FG? Hey Pat, I'd like to buy a running back for $250 please. And a right tackle. And a spare d lineman if you've got one. I'll throw in a fourth string rookie TE who can't catch. And second string TE who can't block. Seriously, why do they need 4 TEs? Getting back to the talking heads, can someone get Millen some chloroform please?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Alex perfected this 2 times, last at 09/27/2010 11:38:54 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 12:25:47 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:20:35 PM That last PI was kind of crap. You can't under throw the ball by 5 yards and then get PI when the defensive player turns around to see the ball and then the offensive player runs into him as much as anything. Child, please.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 06:20:11 AM
If you were the head coach, would you have let the Bears score, with a min left on the clock? I think I would have... Mainly because I have Aaron Rodgers and Mason Crosby on my fantasy team and lost by 1pt (100-99) (Stupid hail mary interception and blocked FG)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
RUFiO1984 edited this at 09/28/2010 6:22:11 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 09:28:05 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:25:47 AM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:20:35 PM That last PI was kind of crap. You can't under throw the ball by 5 yards and then get PI when the defensive player turns around to see the ball and then the offensive player runs into him as much as anything. Child, please. I completely agree with alex. The bears were basicallly rewarded for cutler throwing a crappy pass. Both players have a right to their position, and was only because the bears receiver was trying to come back five yards and ran over the packers db in the process that there was any contact. Child please nothing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 09/28/2010 @ 10:02:49 AM
First of all, even if that's all that happened, yes, even that is a penalty. Secondly, he did everything but chain the Bear to a nearby radiator. Third, child please.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/28/2010 @ 10:17:30 AM
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Today @ 06:20:11 AM If you were the head coach, would you have let the Bears score, with a min left on the clock? I think I would have... Mainly because I have Aaron Rodgers and Mason Crosby on my fantasy team and lost by 1pt (100-99) (Stupid hail mary interception and blocked FG) I think so, but then again it's easy to say that with hindsight. They had to commit to that as soon as it was established that in all likelihood it would come down to a chip shot fg, or weather it out. It's hard to say what would be more or less likely. Cause even field goals from the 2 inch line have to have the snap and hold happen, plus that was a few more plays that a turnover could have happened, all those combined odds might be greater than the odds you drive for a tying score with ~1:30 left and maybe no timeouts. Now if they wouldn't have pissed away a timeout on a terrible challenge for which they had ample time to watch replays, that might change those odds. Teams really need to hire a small team of guys who's only job it is to watch replays from 5 angles and talk to a guy on the field with the red flag. Head Coaches can't handle the red flag. They challenge stupid things roughly 80% of the time. Coaches sit around or below a 40% success rate, and that's including all the times they used it to "successfully" back the opposition up 4 yards on a 2nd and 2 at midfield.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 11:29:03 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:17:30 AM Now if they wouldn't have pissed away a timeout on a terrible challenge for which they had ample time to watch replays, that might change those odds. Yep. With that extra timeout and after the PI down to the 9 I'd tell the defense to either let Forte walk in or if you get a perfect angle to put a helmet on the football try and cause a fumble. It's basically a long extra point from there, which I'm guessing is about 95% conversion rate. The chances of the Packers scoring a TD starting with a kickoff, 1:30 left, and 2 timeouts left are probably more than 5%. That's 1 out of 20. I'd say they'd be at least 25%. You know, assuming they didn't get a penalty every other play. According to this it was only 85% after the PI. Which is still less than my completely unfounded 75% of losing by letting the Bears score a TD. And by tackling Forte at the 3 on the next play they let their losing % go up to 92%. http://wp.advancednflstats.com/index.php?gameid1=selectgame&gameid2=2010092700		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 11:54:55 AM
Yeah, I always get a kick out of NFL players celebrating in situations like that. The only reason to not let him score is to strip the ball. Stuffing that run on third down just sealed the loss more than anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 12:01:57 PM
Also, my brother and I were talking about this afterward, how hard is the toss it around return to execute? Now, I obviously don't mean that they're a surefire td, or they'd get run on every play, but I feel like those end with an illegal forward pass 75% of the time, on a fumble 20% of the time, and a guy actually just getting tackled like 4%. I would hardly devote major practice time to it, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to get it across to players "You boobs across the field, actually stay behind the runner, and if you have the ball you can make a picture perfect pass to a wide open guy, if he's 5 yard upfield you lose the game, you're better off just chucking it up in the air behind you than you are doing that, and remember, the goal isn't to play catch until you set the record for longest NFL play, it's to actually get up the field, so someone at some point as to start making their way." I feel like those are almost always "let's just do this until a penalty happens"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/28/2010 12:05:44 pm

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 09/28/2010 @ 01:11:51 PM
Well, clearly they kept going backwards too much last night. Although it did look the Bears were getting way out of position and if they could have kept it going without the forward a pass a couple more times they might have had something. Or maybe all the Bears were standing at the 50, couldn't really tell. But these are WRs, DBs, RBs, etc. trying to throw 30-40 yard passes, so...I guess I wouldn't expect any better execution. Half the teams in the NFL can't even find QBs that can throw decent 40 yard passes consistently.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 02:04:44 PM
Charles Woodson puts in his two cents: "The quarterback just throws the ball in the air, both guys are turned around looking for the ball and they're both engaged," Woodson said. "I mean, you can't tell me that receiver didn't put his hands on Morgan. And if you can tell that then maybe I'm a liar, but I don't believe that. "And you've got two guys looking back for the ball, fighting for the ball, it should be a no call. The play should be over, but that's what happens in this league. It's such an offensive-minded league that you can just throw a ball up on a play and if we touch a guy, remotely, then they called a penalty and that's got to change."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 03:16:21 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:11:51 PM Well, clearly they kept going backwards too much last night. Although it did look the Bears were getting way out of position and if they could have kept it going without the forward a pass a couple more times they might have had something. Or maybe all the Bears were standing at the 50, couldn't really tell. But these are WRs, DBs, RBs, etc. trying to throw 30-40 yard passes, so...I guess I wouldn't expect any better execution. Half the teams in the NFL can't even find QBs that can throw decent 40 yard passes consistently. Well, I guess I didn't mean I don't get why the throws aren't perfect, it just seems like way too many of them end because some boob threw to a guy 5 yards upfield, and seeing as that should be such an easy to avoid thing, for a couple reasons (The person with the ball KNOWS they can't throw it forward, and the other guys in play KNOW they have to stay behind him), it baffles me that so so many of these plays end that way. "Desperation" doesn't cover it, because you're talking about a guy who thinks he's cornered doing something that ends the play with absolute certainty. Lobbing it to no one at all into the middle of the field is a better option than ending the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/28/2010 3:17:13 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/28/2010 @ 10:26:15 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:20:35 PM Hey Pat, I'd like to buy a running back for $250 please. For the record, my excitement for a Lynch trade has gone from .5 to 8.5. Maybe Buffalo needs some TEs? Maybe not, they have 4 on their roster too. Listening to the B.S. Report talking about the Bills cutting Edwards. He's worthless.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/29/2010 @ 12:42:03 PM
You can't run the ball 10 times a game with Lynch and expect 150 yards either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/29/2010 @ 01:04:30 PM
Brandon Jackson ran for 12 yards on 7 carries, with one of those carries being for 11 yards. And Rodgers himself had 20 of the 63 total team rushing yards. They ran the ball so few times because they have no ability to do so. Suddenly, Ryan Grant is looking all the more valuable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/29/2010 @ 01:13:08 PM
The Vikings led the league in runs for negative yards last year. You wear a team down with your running game, stick with it long enough, and oh look, there goes Adrian. Look, I'm not saying running backs can't be better than one another, that would be absurd. However, Adrian and Chris Johnson's stat lines would look pretty shitty more often than not if they got 7 carries too. It's a chicken or the egg problem, is all I'm getting at.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/29/2010 @ 01:19:08 PM
Right, but I think everyone agrees that Adrian is a special back. He is capable of making that 80 yard run or that 30 yard run or whatever. I don't think anyone in all the NFL has any confidence that Brandon Jackson is worth giving the ball to 20+ times a game in hopes that he breaks that one game breaking run. If they did, he certainly would be given the opportunities. Jackson has been on the team for 4 years now. There is a good reason that Grant got all the carries during those times. He's just not good. He got 11 carries against Buffalo, probably the worst team in the league, and only got 29 yards with a long run of a whopping 6 yards. That's the point I'm getting at.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/29/2010 @ 01:40:01 PM
AD's first 7 carries went for 26 yards, and one of those was 19. Adrian doesn't always bust one, that was his career long. You don't have to bust one to end up with a decent average. Teams do it all the time without an Adrian. You have to run the ball to have a running game, even if it feels like you're running into a brick wall early on. It's a long term investment in a game. Brandon Jackson could be awful, but you can't say "look how awful our running game is!" if you make minimal efforts to actually run the ball. They might have a good reason for not trying, but ultimately you can't know one way or another unless you actually do it. It's also possible your offensive line sucks at run blocking. for that matter.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 09/29/2010 1:42:52 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/29/2010 @ 02:01:00 PM
I would say that 19 yards is busting one. Jackson's season long so far is 18 yards. And in 2.5 games, in 36 carries, he is averaging 2.9 yards. It's obvious that they have shifted to a pass first team even moreso than before Grant's injury, but part of that, again, is that the Packers don't have confidence in Jackson to give him the ball, and he has done nothing in 3+ years as a Packer to suddenly change their minds. I agree teams do it all the time without Adrian. The Packers did it with Grant. And run guys 1 yard gain is not necessarily the same as another's one yard gain. Some of the criticisms of Jackson is that he lacks the vision to see the holes, and he lacks the burst of speed to get through them when he does. I'm not saying "look at his production, he's awful." I was saying he's awful the moment Grant got hurt and I thought I running game was screwed. Jackson has the same offensive line that Grant had. But I do agree with your premise. The mere fact of low rushing numbers isn't reason enough to say he's not good. The running game isn't awful because of the lousy numbers. The numbers are lousy because the running game is awful. I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but either way, I think it's just the reverse of the argument you are making.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/29/2010 @ 02:04:43 PM
Alright, I'm bored with this one. Did this still count?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/29/2010 @ 02:09:23 PM
Well, it's on the week 3 thread, so I think we have to recreate it on week 4, post for post. Then it might count. This one is like at the end of the year when you get your year end review on like December 23rd, and your production for the mid-year review for the next year only counts your numbers starting January first, so the last week of the year is like a black hole. That's what this is like.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/29/2010 @ 02:20:48 PM
Also, for the record, I do get what you're saying, and I'm not sure were really "arguing" "opposites" so much as just different things. Really, the difference in a productive running game and a horrible one really might not be that much. It's like two slow pitch softball pitchers where one hits the strike zone an extra 5% of the time. That's not a big difference, but the outcomes can be wildly different. A running game is probably more about how often you can hit the 10ish yard gains than it is what % go for 50.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/29/2010 @ 02:21:51 PM
Kuhn got 4 times as many yards on the half carries. Jackson is nothing more than a 3rd down back and can not be a starter. Kind of like how the Chargers didn't make Sproles their workhorse when Matthews got hurt. They made their "3rd" string RB their starter. Packers didn't have a 3rd string RB. If your offensive line opens massive holes the quality of your RB matters less. The Packers line doesn't open massive holes. They need another RB, or to try reversing the carry counts of Jackson and Kuhn.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/29/2010 @ 02:27:47 PM
Kuhn might have potential, but I'm not sure if he is a feature back. Although, he is the sort of unconventional Mike Alstott type runner. He might be a viable option, but I would guess he doesn't have the stamina to last a whole game as the feature runner. He does seem to be better than Jackson, though. Or at least, more productive than Jackson.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.