You guys are NOT going to believe this!

[SteelAbility]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

Can anyone post the equivalent Hines play? The Dugan play looked like a clear touchdown.

[stlrz d]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

Can anyone post the equivalent Hines play? The Dugan play looked like a clear touchdown.

The Hines play is not available in the Steelers/Browns highlights. Shocker.

Once more:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:

"Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by 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."

Dugan is going to the ground. He hits the ground and loses the ball. It's quite clear that according to the letter of this awful rule it is not a TD.

That's why the rule needs to go.

[JTP53609]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

thats amazing that he called you back, WOW!!! ed bouchette cant even answer a question if you send him an email but the NFL commisioner answers....take noted Eddy boy

[Northern_Blitz]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

I think it's cool that RG called you, but I hope that they keep the rule (but have some consistancy in officiating). There needs to be a definition of what a catch is. This is especially true for a catch made in the end-zone, where the instant of posession leads to points.

I think that the new rule is way better than the "football move" rule. I never saw two games where the refs/announcers had the same definition of a football move (I think this was as arbitrary and inconsistant as the "kicking motion" is in the NHL). I actually like the new rule. If you can't hold onto it, then you didn't catch it. I don't think either play should be a TD. It's the one new rule in the NFL that favours the defence. If you knock the snot out of a guy and he can't hold on to the ball, it shouldn't be a catch IMO.

I think that the same rule should be institued in the field of play. Larry Fitz (I think) had a fumble called this week where he was making the catch, got hit, then dropped the ball. It was called a fumble on the field and replay upheld this decision. By that logic, if the play happened in the EZ, it should have been ruled a TD, because it's impossible to fumble in the EZ. But, he didn't keep posession while going to the ground, so it couldn't be a TD. So, apparently there are two different rules for posession after a catch in the NFL (or it was a blown call - back to consistancy).

I don't think we need a rule change. I think that the new rule for the EZ is a good rule. I think it should be called consistantly in the field of play and the EZ (so there aren't 2 different definitions of what posession is after a catch). I also think that all replays should be reviewed in real time, by an NFL head office, so that calls are more consistant. But that's a seperate issue.

[Mel Blount's G]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

I have to admit that I've generally been impressed with Goodell. Spy-gate was a black eye for him. But otherwise, I like the guy as much as you can like someone whose decisions will generally only be remembered when they are failures. It is very impressive that he called you back.

I was impressed that he took the time to call back as well. I disagree with some of what is happening (more overseas games, over protection of players) but overall I think he's handling things pretty well.

I liked the fact that he said that particular rule is getting a lot of attention from outside the league. Obviously I'm not the only one who sees what a crap bad word rule it is.

Right, the dude doesn't avoid controversy. He isn't a politician type. He'll address the elephant in the room. That is impressive.

I gotta disagree with this mild praise of Goodell

He did avoid controversy on the spygate incident by destroting the evidence so no objective analysis of the truth woyuld ever take place. Then he acted like all of us fans were total idiots by telling us he did it so the tapes wouldn't get into other people's hands for further illicit use. Riiiight. I understand why he did it though. It may have caused irrepairable damage to the league if the truth came out.

Also, as stlrz d alluded to, these roughing penalties have been detrimental to the game. Remeber when Woodley got fined for an unpenalized tackle of Jason Campbell last year?

Maybe I'm too hard on Goodell. Maybe it's the inconsistency of the refs with Goodell's novel rules that are lacking. I actually think it's been better this year then it was last as far the ridiculous fines, etc..

[ikestops85]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

[quote=Mel Blount's G]

I have to admit that I've generally been impressed with Goodell. Spy-gate was a black eye for him. But otherwise, I like the guy as much as you can like someone whose decisions will generally only be remembered when they are failures. It is very impressive that he called you back.

I was impressed that he took the time to call back as well. I disagree with some of what is happening (more overseas games, over protection of players) but overall I think he's handling things pretty well.

I liked the fact that he said that particular rule is getting a lot of attention from outside the league. Obviously I'm not the only one who sees what a crap bad word rule it is.

Right, the dude doesn't avoid controversy. He isn't a politician type. He'll address the elephant in the room. That is impressive.

I gotta disagree with this mild praise of Goodell

He did avoid controversy on the spygate incident by destroting the evidence so no objective analysis of the truth woyuld ever take place. Then he acted like all of us fans were total idiots by telling us he did it so the tapes wouldn't get into other people's hands for further illicit use. Riiiight. I understand why he did it though. It may have caused irrepairable damage to the league if the truth came out.

Also, as stlrz d alluded to, these roughing penalties have been detrimental to the game. Remeber when Woodley got fined for an unpenalized tackle of Jason Campbell last year?

Maybe I'm too hard on Goodell. Maybe it's the inconsistency of the refs with Goodell's novel rules that are lacking. I actually think it's been better this year then it was last as far the ridiculous fines, etc..[/quote:2nynegc9]

I don't believe Goodell has anything to do with fines assessed hits. I think that is under the realm of Gene Washington, a former WR who is just trying to repay defensive players for the clotheslining he got when running patterns over the middle in his day.

[drprwnap]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

You're right, I don't believe it.

[Mel Blount's G]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

My mistake then for attributing the bns fines to Goodell. In fact, I must admit to ignorance as to how much responsibility for poor officiating falls on Goodell. Really what has bothered me is some of the protection rules that I either don't like at all or don't like because they are so inconsistently and subjectively called; horecollar tackles, spearing, "blows" to the head, the "hines" rule, hits on defensless receivers, all the various qb protection rules that are near impossible to objectively enforce (i.e. low hit - when is it an intent to injure and when is the defender pushed from behind or falling down or losing his balance or diving after a fleeing qb? It sure leaves a lot [too much] room for a ref's personal judgement [or bias] )

Does the league want more offense? Maybe relax or change some rules on these these illegal procedures and illegal formations, etc.... I'm not a CFL fan but they let their WR's get a running start from back off the line of scrimage. I kind of like the pre-snap motion. I think the bigger field and b igger end zone also is conducive to more offense. I'm just saying that the league can enable the offense instead of disabling defenses, which is what most of the new rules seem to do imo

[stlrz d]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

You're right, I don't believe it.

Good thing I provided a link to the audio then, eh?

[grotonsteel]

Re: You guys are NOT going to believe this!

Great Job Stlrz D....


Maybe you could have picked that call and complained about Brady rule too...