Can we talk about that weird catch and fumble incomplete pass?

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
Well, no, it shouldn't be, because it is quite clear that is not what the rules state. Your argument therefore is based on what you believe it should be, not what the NFL voted on and adopted.
I find this comment to be incredible, considering how far into the conversation/argument it came.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
No dummy, Sculpt and I were saying what the rule should be changed to, not what it is now. I get that they ruled according to the rulebook as it is now. I am saying that the rule now makes no sense and that is what it SHOULD be.
Yeah I get it, but what you say the rule should be, changes the entire intent on the rule itself. It is quite clear the intent of the rule was to award no one possession of the ball after the fumble* in this scenario. Aren't rules typically run through the rule committee and voted on by the entire league?

* in years past this would not have been a catch, so yeah, a circumstance came up which most probably never anticipated. It happens. The rules needs a little more clarification, not sure it needs to change it's intent.
 
Last edited:

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
Aren't rules typically run through the rule committee and voted on by the entire league?
What on earth does this even mean? Please provide an example of what you are talking/how you think NFL rules are put in place, even if the example is hypothetical.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
What on earth does this even mean? Please provide an example of what you are talking/how you think NFL rules are put in place, even if the example is hypothetical.
Are you serious?

At the annual meeting, the Competition Committee presents a report of its findings to the 32 owners, who vote on any proposed new rules or rules changes. To be adopted, a new rule or a revision must have the support of 75 percent of the owners (24 yes votes out of 32 clubs).


https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/the-nfl-competition-committee/
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
Are you serious?

At the annual meeting, the Competition Committee presents a report of its findings to the 32 owners, who vote on any proposed new rules or rules changes. To be adopted, a new rule or a revision must have the support of 75 percent of the owners (24 yes votes out of 32 clubs).


https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/the-nfl-competition-committee/
HUH? That is nothing like what you said.

The process you described was an immaculate conception of a "Rule", the Rule "runs through" the "Rules Committee"...although I have no idea what you mean by "runs through" and I am unaware of the existence of the "Rules Committee", hence my question to you...and then the "entire league" votes on it, so I guess in your mind the entire NFL is 32 owners.

Apparently you already knew the actual process, but played coy and still couldn't even summarize it correctly. Incredibly stupid on your part. What is your point?
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
HUH? That is nothing like what you said.

The process you described was an immaculate conception of a "Rule", the Rule "runs through" the "Rules Committee"...although I have no idea what you mean by "runs through" and I am unaware of the existence of the "Rules Committee", hence my question to you...and then the "entire league" votes on it, so I guess in your mind the entire NFL is 32 owners.

Apparently you already knew the actual process, but played coy and still couldn't even summarize it correctly. Incredibly stupid on your part. What is your point?
Yeah, oh boy, I said "rules committee" and not "competition committee" Whoop de effing do..........

And last I checked, there were 32 teams in the NFL........

So I guess I should have said "voted on by every team in the NFL" and not "the entire NFL"

Stop splitting hairs to try to save face.

If you want to see stupid, look in the mirror. I didn't realize I was responding to a second grader.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
Yeah, oh boy, I said "rules committee" and not "competition committee" Whoop de effing do..........

And last I checked, there were 32 teams in the NFL........

Stop splitting hairs to try to save face.

If you want to see stupid, look in the mirror.
So you have no point. Great.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
1,894
759
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Bears Penn State Nittany Lions
Yeah I get it, but what you say the rule should be, changes the entire intent on the rule itself.
But you didn't get that. You acted as if Sculpt and I were arguing that it should have been ruled at that moment by the officials that it was out of bounds or an inadvertent whistle prevented the fumble or whatever phrasing they decide is best to fix the dumbass way it is set up now.

Now you defend the illogic of the current way of officating this type of play by advocating for the "intent of the rule" which is at the heart of the issue itself! This doesn't affect the discussion about the logic behind said "intent" in any way.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
1,894
759
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Bears Penn State Nittany Lions
Aren't rules typically run through the rule committee and voted on by the entire league?
Rory is not "splitting hairs nor being unclear. You are. This what you first asked then when Rory basically said (paraphrasing him): "No. 32 owners is not the entire league. Please provide an example of how rules are changed for the owners to vote," you then said:

At the annual meeting, the Competition Committee presents a report of its findings to the 32 owners, who vote on any proposed new rules or rules changes. To be adopted, a new rule or a revision must have the support of 75 percent of the owners (24 yes votes out of 32 clubs).

To directly quote Rory: "good stuff".

To keep the convo on track re: rules and intent of rules: how does your cut-and-paste about how new propsed rules in the NFL are voted lead us to the conclusion that "intent" must be preserved during a rule change?
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
This would be like spending multiple pages arguing over Devin Hester's HOF worthiness, then having nc0gnet0 chiming in with a cut-and-paste of the HOF voting process and telling everyone else their wrong. Such a purposeless existence.
 

BearsJR

New member
2,324
905
0
In the end, NY screwed up. All they had to do was confirm the call of an incomplete pass as ruled on the field. Yes some would disagree with the ruling, but even if they knew it was a catch, it would’ve been so much easier than ruling it a “cancelled catch”.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
1,894
759
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Bears Penn State Nittany Lions
In the end, NY screwed up. All they had to do was confirm the call of an incomplete pass as ruled on the field. Yes some would disagree with the ruling, but even if they knew it was a catch, it would’ve been so much easier than ruling it a “cancelled catch”.
So what you are saying is that they should have just said "incomplete by LeBlanc successfully pass defending" and kept it quiet and secret that it was actually seen by them as an incomplete by "completed-catch-and-fumble-with-no-player-recovering-the Shrodinger-like-"live/dead"-ball".

Not a great take by you imo.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
18,047
6,095
85
In the end, NY screwed up. All they had to do was confirm the call of an incomplete pass as ruled on the field. Yes some would disagree with the ruling, but even if they knew it was a catch, it would’ve been so much easier than ruling it a “cancelled catch”.
Why would they do that? Why would it be easier to call the wrong thing rather than the right thing?

What would the benefit be? Pretending the initial call was right, while then exposing themselves for getting it wrong twice?
 

BearsJR

New member
2,324
905
0
Why would they do that? Why would it be easier to call the wrong thing rather than the right thing?

What would the benefit be? Pretending the initial call was right, while then exposing themselves for getting it wrong twice?

I can’t say it would be the right thing to do, but it would’ve been a whole lot easier. There’s enough doubt (see above) about whether or not it was an actual catch anyway. I just think in hindsight it would’ve been easier overall to just say “inconclusive evidence to overturn” no matter what they actually thought. Not like it’d be the first time a call was blown and upheld, and eliminates the criticism of a crazy rule.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
1,894
759
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Bears Penn State Nittany Lions
I can’t say it would be the right thing to do, but it would’ve been a whole lot easier. There’s enough doubt (see above) about whether or not it was an actual catch anyway. I just think in hindsight it would’ve been easier overall to just say “inconclusive evidence to overturn” no matter what they actually thought. Not like it’d be the first time a call was blown and upheld, and eliminates the criticism of a crazy rule.
Is that what makes you happy? Eliminating criticism and discussion regarding the logic of things?

Irony contained within the bolded is your advocacy for NY to do what is need to eliminate the criticism of a rule you label "crazy" which is itself... a criticism.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
But you didn't get that. You acted as if Sculpt and I were arguing that it should have been ruled at that moment by the officials that it was out of bounds or an inadvertent whistle prevented the fumble or whatever phrasing they decide is best to fix the dumbass way it is set up now.

Now you defend the illogic of the current way of officating this type of play by advocating for the "intent of the rule" which is at the heart of the issue itself! This doesn't affect the discussion about the logic behind said "intent" in any way.
NO, what I am saying is the end result was exactly what it should have been, loss of down, and possession by the Bears at the original line of scrimmage. Not Eagles ball, not a completed pass and possession by the Bears at the spot of the fumble. So, as long as the net result was what I believe it should have been, no harm, no foul (my opinion).

I then went on to say how I believe wording should be added (my opinion) to the rules to address exactly what happened, and make it a little clearer in the future, while preserving the intent of the rule.

I don't believe the rule needs to be changed to give possession to the offense on an uncontested fumble, in this particular case, because in (again my opinion) the ball was being contested before Robinson completed the catch. Logic dictates that if the catch is being contested, it is not a catch, at least not before the player is down by contact.

Of course, if the catch wasn't being contested, and Robinson still fumbled the ball after making a football move, and the ball still had no clear recovery, that is a different can of worms. However, under those circumstances, I don't ever see that happening.

Are you (and Sculpt) trying to say that logic dictates it should have been Bears ball on that specific play at the spot of the fumble, and the rules should be changed so that if that ever happened again, that would be the case? I don't agree with this.
 
Last edited:

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
1,894
759
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Bears Penn State Nittany Lions
NO, what I am saying is the end result was exactly what it should have been, loss of down, and possession by the Bears at the original line of scrimmage. Not Eagles ball, not a completed pass and possession by the Bears at the spot of the fumble. So, as long as the net result was what I believe it should have been, no harm, no foul (my opinion).

I then went on to say how I believe wording should be added (my opinion) to the rules to address exactly what happened, and make it a little clearer in the future, while preserving the intent of the rule.

I don't believe the rule needs to be changed to give possession to the offense on an uncontested fumble, in this particular case, because in (again my opinion) the ball was being contested before Robinson completed the catch. Logic dictates that if the catch is being contested, it is not a catch, at least not before the player is down by contact.

Of course, if the catch wasn't being contested, and Robinson still fumbled the ball after making a football move, and the ball still had no clear recovery, that is a different can of worms. However, under those circumstances, I don't ever see that happening.

Are you (and Sculpt) trying to say that logic dictates it should have been Bears ball on that specific play at the spot of the fumble, and the rules should be changed so that if that ever happened again, that would be the case? I don't agree with this.
Your lack of comprehension of an opposing view suggests you should go into politics as you would do really well.

Your ability to obfuscate a fairly straightforward problem with possible solutions moving forward suggests you would be awesome on the NFL Rules Committee.

Logic does not "dictate that if a catch is being contested, it is not a catch", the NFL rules do. Also the crew ruled that it was not "contested". They ruled that the ball was not moving therefore a catch (even if LeBlanc's arm could be considered equal to WR's hand then the rule says tie goes to WR) That Miller caught it, took steps and fumbled. Disagree with them all you want about the catch vs. non-catch if you choose, that's fine. And not at all my issue.

My issue is if NFL rules say that if a catch and fumble and no player recovers BECAUSE THE REF CALLED INCOMPLETE INITIALLY, then the catch (after review) is arbitrarily a non-catch. This is the definition of logical contradiction and should be amended to be a case of "inadvertent whistle". Just my opinion and my position, but you have never answered that but insist somehow that this whole thing doesn't matter what the ref says because YOU say it was incomplete anyway therefore no debate need even happen!

Good stuff.

Also it was Miller not Robinson.

Dumbass. lol Go Bears! Lions suck.
 

Toast88

Well-known member
6,133
3,354
70
The weirdest part to me is that the rule retroactively *takes something away* because of something that happened *afterward*. That's the weirdest part, although I do understand the argument for the rule. Shitty rule anyway.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
Your lack of comprehension of an opposing view suggests you should go into politics as you would do really well.
pot......meet Kettle. My views nets the same results that resulted in what was ruled on the field, not to mention voted on by all 32 NFL owners and passed. Your views represent that of a butt hurt Bears fan looking for a loophole in a rule that would have benefited the Bears.

Your ability to obfuscate a fairly straightforward problem with possible solutions moving forward suggests you would be awesome on the NFL Rules Committee.
Your ability to comprehend what the end result of that specific play should have been clearly illustrates why you shouldn't be.



Logic does not "dictate that if a catch is being contested, it is not a catch", the NFL rules do. Also the crew ruled that it was not "contested". They ruled that the ball was not moving therefore a catch (even if LeBlanc's arm could be considered equal to WR's hand then the rule says tie goes to WR) That Miller caught it, took steps and fumbled. Disagree with them all you want about the catch vs. non-catch if you choose, that's fine. And not at all my issue.
What part of "my opinion" is it you fail to grasp? The official on the field that witnessed the play in real time ruled it incomplete. Your "crew" that overturned that call had the benefit of slow motion replay. Regardless, it was not unanimous.

My issue is if NFL rules say that if a catch and fumble and no player recovers BECAUSE THE REF CALLED INCOMPLETE INITIALLY, then the catch (after review) is arbitrarily a non-catch. This is the definition of logical contradiction and should be amended to be a case of "inadvertent whistle". Just my opinion and my position, but you have never answered that but insist somehow that this whole thing doesn't matter what the ref says because YOU say it was incomplete anyway therefore no debate need even happen!
Nice try. Your twisting my words. I never said that, I said it should be an incomplete catch, not that under the current rules it was.

Good stuff.

Also it was Miller not Robinson.

Dumbass. lol Go Bears! Lions suck.
Robinson, Miller...who cares, tell him to hold onto the ball next time and we won't have this conversation. Or better yet, have the presence of mind, if he thought he did indeed catch the ball, to go pick up the ball. The fact he didn't seems to suggest even Miller thought it was incomplete.......

Doink....doink......

Oh, and the Bears finished last in 4 out of the last five years, and went one and done in the playoffs this year, whoopee doo.
 
Last edited:

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
My views nets the same results that resulted in what was ruled on the field, not to mention voted on by all 32 NFL owners and passed.
I didn't think it would be possible for you to revert back to this level of idiocy, but here we are.
 
Top