Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 111 to 124 of 124

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

  1. #111
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,324

    Default

    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”.

  2. #112
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BearsJR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  3. #113
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BearsJR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?

  4. #114
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TL1961 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  5. #115
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BearsJR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  6. #116
    CCS Donator nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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 by nc0gnet0; 01-10-2019 at 04:20 PM.
    "But I also understand this is just talk and we've got to show actions. We've got to show results. I fully get that." - Ryan Pace

  7. #117
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  8. #118
    All-Star Toast88's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,036

    Default

    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.

  9. #119
    CCS Donator nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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 by nc0gnet0; 01-11-2019 at 12:50 PM.
    "But I also understand this is just talk and we've got to show actions. We've got to show results. I fully get that." - Ryan Pace

  10. #120
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  11. #121
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    [QUOTE=nc0gnet0;3282809]
    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.
    Wrong again.

    Your ability to comprehend what the end result of that specific play should have been clearly illustrates why you shouldn't be.
    You are correct here. My ability to comprehend what would make sense to happen after this play would preclude me from the obfuscation required in the NFL Rules Committee.

    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.
    I fail to grasp most of your nonsense including what "unanimous" remotely has to do with anything here.

    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.
    So you do agree it was ruled complete after the review? Ok, and compound that with a fumble after said catch and you have a catch retroactively being a non-catch. Objectively a logical contradiction once you grant it was ruled an eventual catch.


    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.
    What's your point? If he did then the Bears would have had possession and we wouldn't have this convo. That doesn't make the rule as it is logical.

    That doesn't stop the fact that if it stands this way, there would be every incentive for both offensive and defensive players fighting for the ball after every incompletion just in case a review might come up disregarding the whistle or refs saying "stop fighting we blew the whistle".

    The fact he didn't seems to suggest even Miller thought it was incomplete.......
    Another completely irrelevant observation by you.

    Doink....doink......
    Yep Parkey sucks. Good one?

    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.
    Yep whoopee doo for the Bears. They definitely should have done better with the talent. Wait ... what is your implication from that? That therefore your Lions don't suck?

    Everything you said is true and also the Lions simultaneously suck worse. Is what it is. I am curious because when the Bears sucked I was always happy to agree in my frustration with how shit they were. Interesting.

  12. #122
    All-Star Sculpt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Need to remove your Bears goggles and think about this more logically. So, by your idea of what is right, if the same play would have happened on the one yard line, and the pass was ruled incomplete, and the resultant fumble went through the end zone, (then review showed it to be acually a completed pass and fumble) then it would have been Eagles ball, regardless of the whistle?

    of course if that would have been what had happened you would be making a 180 degree turn about saying how ridiculous THAT was.
    No, I wouldn't make a 180 degree turn about it.

    And actually, according to the current rules, the way in was ruled in the game, the rules you agree with, if the ball did go into, and out the back, of the endzone, it would have been Eagles ball (Safety or Touchback). That's because according to the review, they went by what happened after the whistle, that is: because there was no clear fumble recovery it's ruled an incomplete pass. We'd have to assume they would acknowledged the ball going out the endzone -- where there are established rules, and followed those.

    So my addendum to the rule wouldn't have changed that issue. Sure, I wouldn't have liked it, but I just want best rule. If it's a catch and fumble, and no clear recovery, the team with last possession keeps at spot of fumble.

    It is interesting that during reviews, refs consider (and apply) what happens after a whistle. The review showed the ref was just wrong calling it an incompletion... they could have ruled the play ended at the whistle, last possession was with the receiver. What happened after the whistle didn't change that, so it's still receiver's ball last, no logic to change it to an incomplete pass.
    The Hunger Site -- click once a day, and sponsors give 1.1 cups of food to the hungry.
    Consider making it your Home Page: Hidden Content

  13. #123
    CCS Donator nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sculpt View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, I wouldn't make a 180 degree turn about it.

    And actually, according to the current rules, the way in was ruled in the game, the rules you agree with, if the ball did go into, and out the back, of the endzone, it would have been Eagles ball (Safety or Touchback). That's because according to the review, they went by what happened after the whistle, that is: because there was no clear fumble recovery it's ruled an incomplete pass. We'd have to assume they would acknowledged the ball going out the endzone -- where there are established rules, and followed those.
    Again, I never said I agreed with the rule, as it stands now, and as it applied to that specific play. I said I agreed with the outcome of the rule. There is a difference, a point that most on here seem to continue to ignore.

    Everyone seems to be in agreement that the rule was enforced correctly, as it is written.

    The problem people have is that they don't like the rule itself.

    Everyone arguing for a change to the rule that would have allowed a completed pass, so Bears ball at the point of the fumble (no clear recovery) ignore the fact that the catch was being contested. I have previously and repeatedly said, if the catch was not being contested, Bears ball at the point of the fumble would make sense.

    However, I believe, sense the ball was being contested, it should have never been ruled a catch in the first place, and the result would have been the same.

    What I find amusing is, that if the rule change was as you suggested, then we would have a case in which a fumble with no recovery that stopped 6" from the back of the end zone would be Bears ball, but if it rolled out of the end zone, then it would be Eagles ball. That makes sense how? In my scenario both would be Bears ball, loss of down.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sculpt View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is interesting that during reviews, refs consider (and apply) what happens after a whistle. The review showed the ref was just wrong calling it an incompletion... they could have ruled the play ended at the whistle, last possession was with the receiver. What happened after the whistle didn't change that, so it's still receiver's ball last, no logic to change it to an incomplete pass.
    I agree with that. I have read opinions/interpretations on this that the rules only allow for continuation after the whistle. For instance a guy that was diving for the ball could be allowed to finish his action that was started before the whistle, but a guy could not turn around, go over and pick up the ball and claim possession after the whistle.

    And for the record, the official on the field did not make a mistake. They are taught that when in doubt, rule it incomplete.

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/n...when-in-doubt/
    Last edited by nc0gnet0; 01-12-2019 at 01:53 AM.
    "But I also understand this is just talk and we've got to show actions. We've got to show results. I fully get that." - Ryan Pace

  14. #124
    All-Star Sculpt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Again, I never said I agreed with the rule, as it stands now, and as it applied to that specific play. I said I agreed with the outcome of the rule. There is a difference, a point that most on here seem to continue to ignore.

    Everyone seems to be in agreement that the rule was enforced correctly, as it is written.

    The problem people have is that they don't like the rule itself.

    Everyone arguing for a change to the rule that would have allowed a completed pass, so Bears ball at the point of the fumble (no clear recovery) ignore the fact that the catch was being contested. I have previously and repeatedly said, if the catch was not being contested, Bears ball at the point of the fumble would make sense.

    However, I believe, sense the ball was being contested, it should have never been ruled a catch in the first place, and the result would have been the same.

    What I find amusing is, that if the rule change was as you suggested, then we would have a case in which a fumble with no recovery that stopped 6" from the back of the end zone would be Bears ball, but if it rolled out of the end zone, then it would be Eagles ball. That makes sense how? In my scenario both would be Bears ball, loss of down.
    Ah, good shoes! I didn't catch that you disagreed with the rule, and was just saying the refs followed the rules correctly.

    Yeah, when the ball is fumbled out the endzone it really sucks, or the rules suck, it's really drastic. I wonder if there's better rules to be had there?


    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree with that. I have read opinions/interpretations on this that the rules only allow for continuation after the whistle. For instance a guy that was diving for the ball could be allowed to finish his action that was started before the whistle, but a guy could not turn around, go over and pick up the ball and claim possession after the whistle.

    And for the record, the official on the field did not make a mistake. They are taught that when in doubt, rule it incomplete.

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/n...when-in-doubt/
    And for the record, I didn't say the ref made a mistake, I'm sure he called it like he saw it and was trained; rather I said he was found to be wrong/incorrect by the review.

    I think their training is correct too. Article talks about 'bang-bang' plays, which it doesn't define but I'm sure they mean the receiver appears to catch the ball but is immediately separated from the ball by the next bang, which is the defender or ground knocking it out. So refs are taught if the ball is knocked away immediately, rule it incomplete, rather than trying to compute if the receiver had all the components of a completed pass -- like was starting to make a football/ballcarrier move and all that.
    The Hunger Site -- click once a day, and sponsors give 1.1 cups of food to the hungry.
    Consider making it your Home Page: Hidden Content

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •