Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thspfc]

Cowboys would be 8-6 right now if the Colts and Texans weren't on the schedule the last few weeks.

Are we taking out everyone's wins against low-quality teams then?

Eagles seem to be the class of the NFC but have had too many close calls against weak teams of late.

The Chiefs have struggled to beat the Broncos and Texans the last two weeks, are we applying the same logic there?

[thspfc]

BTW, Stevenson didn't fumble--he actually lateraled to Meyers on the play.

That's what I read later on.  Although at the time, at real speed, it looked like the ball had slipped up and out, with an intentional lateral afterwards (that was intercepted).

Refs wanted to get back at us for Philly I suppose. What can you do.

Reviewable pass interference please . . .

I'm on the fence on this one.  A lot of people complaint that the refs need to let the teams play and stop calling so many penalties, yet those same people want to make penalties reviewable when one was missed.  If they start reviewing them, then people will ultra-slow mo the replays to find a ticky-tack touch that is an "obvious" interference.  Sure, if the guy is mowed down it's obvious.  But do fans start getting to the point where they cry foul because a thread of a uniform was touched?

Many fans will go nuts regardless. As I said, I personally would be satisfied with the blatantly obvious calls being made correctly. Officiating isn't perfect and that's part of the game, but some of the stuff that happened this week is inexcusable.

[JayhawkCO]

BTW, Stevenson didn't fumble--he actually lateraled to Meyers on the play.

That's what I read later on.  Although at the time, at real speed, it looked like the ball had slipped up and out, with an intentional lateral afterwards (that was intercepted).

Refs wanted to get back at us for Philly I suppose. What can you do.

Reviewable pass interference please . . .

I'm on the fence on this one.  A lot of people complaint that the refs need to let the teams play and stop calling so many penalties, yet those same people want to make penalties reviewable when one was missed.  If they start reviewing them, then people will ultra-slow mo the replays to find a ticky-tack touch that is an "obvious" interference.  Sure, if the guy is mowed down it's obvious.  But do fans start getting to the point where they cry foul because a thread of a uniform was touched?

Many fans will go nuts regardless. As I said, I personally would be satisfied with the blatantly obvious calls being made correctly. Officiating isn't perfect and that's part of the game, but some of the stuff that happened this week is inexcusable.

We had it for at least one season (maybe two?). I'd be in favor of it if the review official could only watch it at full speed. When you go to slow mo, everything looks like a penalty.

[gr8daynegb]

BTW, Stevenson didn't fumble--he actually lateraled to Meyers on the play.

That's what I read later on.  Although at the time, at real speed, it looked like the ball had slipped up and out, with an intentional lateral afterwards (that was intercepted).

Refs wanted to get back at us for Philly I suppose. What can you do.

Reviewable pass interference please . . .

I'm on the fence on this one.  A lot of people complaint that the refs need to let the teams play and stop calling so many penalties, yet those same people want to make penalties reviewable when one was missed.  If they start reviewing them, then people will ultra-slow mo the replays to find a ticky-tack touch that is an "obvious" interference.  Sure, if the guy is mowed down it's obvious.  But do fans start getting to the point where they cry foul because a thread of a uniform was touched?

Many fans will go nuts regardless. As I said, I personally would be satisfied with the blatantly obvious calls being made correctly. Officiating isn't perfect and that's part of the game, but some of the stuff that happened this week is inexcusable.

We had it for at least one season (maybe two?). I'd be in favor of it if the review official could only watch it at full speed. When you go to slow mo, everything looks like a penalty.

Was only one season that pass interference was reviewable.  I believe like one the Vikings had one called/overturned against them vs the Packers.........otherwise nothing was ever called or overturned that season to the best of my memory.  And fans and teams were like what's the point then for pass interference being reviewable.

[NWI_Irish96]

The problem with PI is that the rule is clear that it doesn't take just contact, it takes contact that substantially hinders a player's ability to catch a pass. It's the most subjective rule there is.

[Big John]

Rules are different too.  It wasn't that long ago only 1 foot had to be in bounds.  Mandating 2 feet be in bounds is where a lot of the arguments have occurred, since that second foot is often a critical inch in or out.

As long as I remember, it was 1 foot in college football and 2 feet in the NFL.

[1995hoo]

Rules are different too.  It wasn't that long ago only 1 foot had to be in bounds.  Mandating 2 feet be in bounds is where a lot of the arguments have occurred, since that second foot is often a critical inch in or out.

As long as I remember, it was 1 foot in college football and 2 feet in the NFL.

I always recall it being the same way you describe. I don’t ever remember one foot being sufficient in the NFL. The main rules change I remember as to a completed pass was the elimination of the "force-out" rule whereby when a receiver catches and controls the ball inbounds in the air but is unable to put both feet down because a defender pushes him out of bounds before he can touch his feet to the ground, even though it is clear he otherwise would have done so, is no longer a completed pass. I’m certain I recall that in the past that sort of thing could be considered a completion.

Edited to add: It looks like the NFL eliminated the "force-out" rule prior to the 2008 season. The following is the old rule:

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

[ilpt4u]

The problem with PI is that the rule is clear that it doesn't take just contact, it takes contact that substantially hinders a player's ability to catch a pass. It's the most subjective rule there is.

Another element of its subjective nature: DPI cannot, by rule, apply when a thrown ball is deemed uncatchable (very subjective) or if tipped (this is actually such an objective element of the rule, it can be reviewed/challenged)

[jeffandnicole]

Rules are different too.  It wasn't that long ago only 1 foot had to be in bounds.  Mandating 2 feet be in bounds is where a lot of the arguments have occurred, since that second foot is often a critical inch in or out.

As long as I remember, it was 1 foot in college football and 2 feet in the NFL.

I always recall it being the same way you describe. I don’t ever remember one foot being sufficient in the NFL. The main rules change I remember as to a completed pass was the elimination of the "force-out" rule whereby when a receiver catches and controls the ball inbounds in the air but is unable to put both feet down because a defender pushes him out of bounds before he can touch his feet to the ground, even though it is clear he otherwise would have done so, is no longer a completed pass. I’m certain I recall that in the past that sort of thing could be considered a completion.

Edited to add: It looks like the NFL eliminated the "force-out" rule prior to the 2008 season. The following is the old rule:

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.  For some reason, to me, it seems the 2 feet thing has taken on more importance more recently. 

[thspfc]

https://twitter.com/NFL_Memes/status/1604586266242256897

[1995hoo]

Rules are different too.  It wasn't that long ago only 1 foot had to be in bounds.  Mandating 2 feet be in bounds is where a lot of the arguments have occurred, since that second foot is often a critical inch in or out.

As long as I remember, it was 1 foot in college football and 2 feet in the NFL.

I always recall it being the same way you describe. I don’t ever remember one foot being sufficient in the NFL. The main rules change I remember as to a completed pass was the elimination of the "force-out" rule whereby when a receiver catches and controls the ball inbounds in the air but is unable to put both feet down because a defender pushes him out of bounds before he can touch his feet to the ground, even though it is clear he otherwise would have done so, is no longer a completed pass. I’m certain I recall that in the past that sort of thing could be considered a completion.

Edited to add: It looks like the NFL eliminated the "force-out" rule prior to the 2008 season. The following is the old rule:

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.  For some reason, to me, it seems the 2 feet thing has taken on more importance more recently. 

I think you're right in general and that the league has made the process of a catch more stringent. Recall a few years back when they amended the rule to say that a receiver must maintain control of the ball throughout the entire process of making the catch. Then that proved confusing, so they changed it again to require the player "secure control of the ball," have two feet or another body part down inbounds, and "perform an act common to the game" (such as a third step or stretching the ball towards the goal line or the line to gain) or have the ability to perform such an act (meaning, basically, a player could have run with the ball if he hadn't been tackled as he made the catch). Essentially all this is trying to clarify that if the ball pops out when the player hits the ground, it's an incomplete pass. (One might reasonably ask why the ground can cause an incomplete pass but can't cause a fumble.)

[webny99]

A look at the most likely games to be chosen for the regular season finale on SNF...

1. Ravens at Bengals for AFC North title
 It's highly likely that both teams will go to the playoffs and the division title will come down to this game. The Bengals have to win just one of their next two to guarantee a chance for the division title. The Ravens can't fall back another game, so if the Bengals win both, they would also have to win both (at home vs. Falcons and Steelers) for a chance to clinch the tiebreaker - and the division - in Week 18. Fortunately for them, the Bengals have two tough games against the Patriots and Bills, so they may be able to afford a slip-up.

2. Titans at Jaguars for AFC South title
 Almost identical situation to the AFC North, except the loser will likely miss out on the playoffs. Titans have to win one of their next two, Jaguars would have to win both only if the Titans also win both.

3. Jets at Dolphins for AFC Wild Card
 This hinges on how things play out with the other wild card contenders, namely Chargers and Patriots. As of right now, either team could clinch a playoff berth here if they win out. The Chargers winning their next two and the Patriots losing at least one of two would make this a win and in for the final wild card spot.

4. Lions at Packers for NFC Wild Card
 This will be an important game for the Lions, but the Packers being alive here depends on winning their next two games first, and it's probably irrelevant for them if they don't. It would also depend on how things play out with the other wild card contenders, namely the Commanders and Seahawks.

5. Falcons at Bucs or Panthers at Saints for NFC South title
 In the battle for the NFL's worst division, I'm lumping these 2 matchups together because they're highly interconnected. Bucs can clinch with a win over Arizona this week and a win over the Panthers in Week 17. If they lose to the Panthers, things get very interesting. The Panthers could then clinch with a win over the Saints here, but if the Saints could have a chance too if they win their next two. The most likely outcome is that both games will matter and need to be played at the same time.

[Henry]

I'll bet the experts are now eating their caps who predicted that the Seahawks would completely fall apart and the Broncos would compete for a playoff spot with Russell Wilson at QB. It's funny how it's going to end up being the other way around...

[amroad17]

Rules are different too.  It wasn't that long ago only 1 foot had to be in bounds.  Mandating 2 feet be in bounds is where a lot of the arguments have occurred, since that second foot is often a critical inch in or out.

As long as I remember, it was 1 foot in college football and 2 feet in the NFL.

I always recall it being the same way you describe. I don’t ever remember one foot being sufficient in the NFL. The main rules change I remember as to a completed pass was the elimination of the "force-out" rule whereby when a receiver catches and controls the ball inbounds in the air but is unable to put both feet down because a defender pushes him out of bounds before he can touch his feet to the ground, even though it is clear he otherwise would have done so, is no longer a completed pass. I’m certain I recall that in the past that sort of thing could be considered a completion.

Edited to add: It looks like the NFL eliminated the "force-out" rule prior to the 2008 season. The following is the old rule:

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.  For some reason, to me, it seems the 2 feet thing has taken on more importance more recently. 

I think you're right in general and that the league has made the process of a catch more stringent. Recall a few years back when they amended the rule to say that a receiver must maintain control of the ball throughout the entire process of making the catch. Then that proved confusing, so they changed it again to require the player "secure control of the ball," have two feet or another body part down inbounds, and "perform an act common to the game" (such as a third step or stretching the ball towards the goal line or the line to gain) or have the ability to perform such an act (meaning, basically, a player could have run with the ball if he hadn't been tackled as he made the catch). Essentially all this is trying to clarify that if the ball pops out when the player hits the ground, it's an incomplete pass. (One might reasonably ask why the ground can cause an incomplete pass but can't cause a fumble.)

So, I guess the Mel Gray touchdown catch for the St. Louis Cardinals against the Washington Redskins in 1975 to send the game into OT (Cardinals won 20-17) would not have been a catch under today's rules.    

[Big John]

^^ And the commentary would get the announcer fired today  "like wild-eyed Indians"

[JayhawkCO]

RIP Franco Harris.

[mgk920]

At least the weather cooperated for the Packers on Monday Night.


Mike

[triplemultiplex]

Can't expect the same down in Miami on Xmas day.

[thspfc]

Jaguars 21, Jets 20
Ravens 19, Falcons 17
Lions 30, Panthers 27
Chiefs 34, Seahawks 27
Browns 20, Saints 7
Titans 28, Texans 22
Bengals 27, Patriots 14
Vikings 28, Giants 24
Bills 44, Bears 17
49ers 25, Commanders 13
Cowboys 31, Eagles 23
Raiders 24, Steelers 17
Dolphins 35, Packers 14
Broncos 17, Rams 10
Buccaneers 20, Cardinals 17
Chargers 16, Colts 7

[webny99]

No. At 7-3 I said the Jets wouldn't win another game. I stand by this as a Jets fan.

Oh no. You might be right about this, but the silver lining is that at least you know you have to move on from Zach Wilson.

The Jags are now tied with the Jets with a 7-8 record, but their division puts them in great position. All they have to do is beat the Texans to guarantee a win-and-in in Week 18. That's easier said than done though... they're on a 9-game losing streak against the Texans and haven't beat them since 2017.

[thspfc]

No. At 7-3 I said the Jets wouldn't win another game. I stand by this as a Jets fan.

Their last win, over the Bears, brought them to 7-4. That was the game Mike White played flawlessly in his first start of the season. Quite impressive if this isn’t revisionist history.

[Alps]

No. At 7-3 I said the Jets wouldn't win another game. I stand by this as a Jets fan.

Their last win, over the Bears, brought them to 7-4. That was the game Mike White played flawlessly in his first start of the season. Quite impressive if this isn’t revisionist history.

Yeah. 6-3, 6-4, 7-4, pff.

[amroad17]

^^ And the commentary would get the announcer fired today  "like wild-eyed Indians"

Yes, much has changed since the 1970's.  Although, if he was around today, Pat Summerall more than likely would not be saying that in commentary.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Horrible day for special teams/kicking today (CIN-NE kickers are 1 for 4 in extra points).

[Ted$8roadFan]

Sigh….Pats season is essentially over. They could have pulled out a win, but too many mistakes did them in.