Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Adding fuel to the fire « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5

calicojack

*
Starter
****
Posts : 835
Offline
#60 : November 19, 2009, 03:15:37 PM

I'm pretty sure that some angry raider fan has posted a still photo of Murphy "maintaining control" right before he loses control after he hit the ground...

The Dream Team

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
#61 : November 19, 2009, 03:17:50 PM

The only argument can be made is reference to time which is NOT spelled out in the rule, because Clayton clearly has control of the ball. �

This is the crux of it. To US as fans, he had control. To the refs involved, he may have "had" control but he didn't "maintain" control. Having versus having and maintaining is the point of debate. As the rule is laid out, the call is correct BY THE LETTER. That doesn't mean the call is RIGHT or that the rule is a good one.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28868
Offline
#62 : November 19, 2009, 03:19:44 PM

Yes, the only question is time. He controlled the ball after he hit the ground. But obviously not long enough for the referees to rule him down by contact. The rule sucks. What happens if  Player A catches a ball, is down by contact and tosses the ball to the ref? Should the opposing team go after the ref and try to get the ball because Player A didn't hold onto the ball for the required, arbitrary amount of time? NFL should fix the rule before the playoffs.


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#63 : November 19, 2009, 03:20:45 PM

I'm pretty sure that some angry raider fan has posted a still photo of Murphy "maintaining control" right before he loses control after he hit the ground...

they would be wrong because he didn't "maintain" control "after" he hit the ground.  He lost control when he hit the ground.  Keep trying to make it seem like the two plays are the same.  It weakens your arguement.

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#64 : November 19, 2009, 03:22:09 PM

The only argument can be made is reference to time which is NOT spelled out in the rule, because Clayton clearly has control of the ball. �

This is the crux of it. To US as fans, he had control. To the refs involved, he may have "had" control but he didn't "maintain" control. Having versus having and maintaining is the point of debate. As the rule is laid out, the call is correct BY THE LETTER. That doesn't mean the call is RIGHT or that the rule is a good one.



Disagree that they made it BY THE LETTER.  There is no doubt he maintained control after hitting the ground.  They blew and are just trying to justify by streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of the words "maintain" and "after".

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#65 : November 19, 2009, 03:22:39 PM

Ah well... if people don't want to understand the rule, I can't force them to.

true, shame the people enforcing them don't understand them

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#66 : November 19, 2009, 03:23:38 PM



didn't edell get two feet down? .... thought that made the "maintain control" after hitting the ground null and void


as a matter of fact ... so did Murphy ... maybe angry Raider fans should send a picture of that

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31580
Offline
#67 : November 19, 2009, 03:26:34 PM

I'm pretty sure that some angry raider fan has posted a still photo of Murphy "maintaining control" right before he loses control after he hit the ground...

I bet they don't, since Murphy lost control WHEN he hit the ground and not AFTER he hit the ground.  A basic understanding of this concept would help you out tremendously.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31580
Offline
#68 : November 19, 2009, 03:28:54 PM

As the rule is laid out, the call is correct BY THE LETTER.

That's not true since this is in the rule:  "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground."  Clayton maintained control of the ball after he touched the ground.  Not so cut-and-dry.


Capt_Chaos

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1483
Offline
#69 : November 19, 2009, 03:32:26 PM



didn't edell get two feet down? .... thought that made the "maintain control" after hitting the ground null and void

he cought the ball, maintained control, took 2 steps, went to the ground from contact, one knee hit ,the other knee hit and the ball started moving around in his arms, but the ground caused it to come out. the ref said that if he would have taken 3 steps it would have been a TD


Capt_Chaos

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1483
Offline
#70 : November 19, 2009, 03:38:46 PM

As the rule is laid out, the call is correct BY THE LETTER.

That's not true since this is in the rule:  "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground."  Clayton maintained control of the ball after he touched the ground.  Not so cut-and-dry.


he absolutely maintained control on the way to the ground, on the graound, and even rolled all the way over onto his knees and elbows and still had the ball.  this would be different if he lost posession of the ball from being hit and then dropping it when he landed on his back, but he kept the ball even after being contacted by 2 different defenders.


ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10725
Online
#71 : November 19, 2009, 03:41:11 PM

I'm pretty sure that some angry raider fan has posted a still photo of Murphy "maintaining control" right before he loses control after he hit the ground...


didn't edell get two feet down? .... thought that made the "maintain control" after hitting the ground null and void


as a matter of fact ... so did Murphy ... maybe angry Raider fans should send a picture of that

The Murphy catch/non catch reaction was probably worse than the Clayton issue.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#72 : November 19, 2009, 03:44:38 PM



didn't edell get two feet down? .... thought that made the "maintain control" after hitting the ground null and void

he cought the ball, maintained control, took 2 steps, went to the ground from contact, one knee hit ,the other knee hit and the ball started moving around in his arms, but the ground caused it to come out. the ref said that if he would have taken 3 steps it would have been a TD


that's funny ... here they say he needed two feet down ... funny how the NFL manipulates these things to cover their rear ... yet some here want to defend the blown call ....

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#73 : November 19, 2009, 03:45:39 PM

I'm pretty sure that some angry raider fan has posted a still photo of Murphy "maintaining control" right before he loses control after he hit the ground...


didn't edell get two feet down? .... thought that made the "maintain control" after hitting the ground null and void


as a matter of fact ... so did Murphy ... maybe angry Raider fans should send a picture of that

The Murphy catch/non catch reaction was probably worse than the Clayton issue.

it shows that the NFL will say what they need to say to cover their rear ... keep buying into that nonsense hook, line, and sinker
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Adding fuel to the fire « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools