NFL Week 6 - Page 2

1neeto · #16 10-16-2017, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posternutbag

The receiver looked like had control of the ball when he hit the pylon, but a receiver isn't a runner until he has control and establishes that he is down. It is my understanding (and I may have a imperfect understanding of the rule) that since he was a receiver, the pylon is irrelevant, and he had to control the ball all the way to the ground AND remain in bounds. The receiver had control of the ball when he hit the pylon, but he was out of bounds and without control when he came down. Again, if he were a runner, contact with the pylon would be sufficient for a touchdown, but since he was still a receiver in the process of making a catch and had not established himself as a runner, the rules that apply are the receiver rules, not the rules governing a runner. That is a tiny point, and illustrates why the definitions for a "catch" and "receiver" need to be simplified.

I just realized I didn’t fully understand the rule until now. I bet some of the officials feel confused as well. [emoji23]

1neeto · #17 10-17-2017, 12:57 AM

So enough about the Patriots, and let’s reflect of what seems to me the week of the underdog. Lots of upsets this week by teams breaking off the goose egg (except the 9rs and Browns). We got the Chargers upsetting the Raiders, the Giants big upset against the Broncos, Steelers upsetting the undefeated Chiefs, and the sad outcome of the Packers losing Rodgers for the season due to a broken collarbone.

It was quite the crazy week when you think about it!

1neeto · #18 10-17-2017, 07:02 AM

Lol I’m a hardcore Patriots fan! I like to play around like that. [emoji4]

posternutbag · #19 10-17-2017, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1neeto

I just realized I didn’t fully understand the rule until now. I bet some of the officials feel confused as well. [emoji23]

Just don't ask me what constitutes a "football move". I don't know if I could explain that one.

robj144 · #20 10-17-2017, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posternutbag

The receiver looked like had control of the ball when he hit the pylon, but a receiver isn't a runner until he has control and establishes that he is down. It is my understanding (and I may have a imperfect understanding of the rule) that since he was a receiver, the pylon is irrelevant, and he had to control the ball all the way to the ground AND remain in bounds. The receiver had control of the ball when he hit the pylon, but he was out of bounds and without control when he came down. Again, if he were a runner, contact with the pylon would be sufficient for a touchdown, but since he was still a receiver in the process of making a catch and had not established himself as a runner, the rules that apply are the receiver rules, not the rules governing a runner. That is a tiny point, and illustrates why the definitions for a "catch" and "receiver" need to be simplified.

I don't think it needs to be differentiated. If an offensive player fumbles before he crosses the endzone and the ball goes out of the endzone, it's a touchback. Always has been that way.

The TE lost control of the ball before entering the endzone and was in the process of gaining control as he crossed the pylon. But, when he went to the ground the ball switched hands, and it was deemed he did not have full possession until after he was on the ground out of bounds. Thus, it's the same as a fumble out of the endzone. If he hadn't established himself as a runner, it would be incomplete.

posternutbag · #21 10-18-2017, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robj144

I don't think it needs to be differentiated. If an offensive player fumbles before he crosses the endzone and the ball goes out of the endzone, it's a touchback. Always has been that way.

The TE lost control of the ball before entering the endzone and was in the process of gaining control as he crossed the pylon. But, when he went to the ground the ball switched hands, and it was deemed he did not have full possession until after he was on the ground out of bounds. Thus, it's the same as a fumble out of the endzone. If he hadn't established himself as a runner, it would be incomplete.

So, are you saying that the TE has control of the ball and was in bounds BEFORE he hit the pylon? If so, then he is a runner and when he hit the pylon it should have been a TD.

Or, alternatively, is your position that the TE has control of the ball, but before he hit the pylon he lost control of the ball, and he fumbled it into the end zone, which should result in a touchback?

I just want to be clear on your understanding of the sequence of events, because my understanding may be wrong, but I want to be sure.

robj144 · #22 10-18-2017, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posternutbag

So, are you saying that the TE has control of the ball and was in bounds BEFORE he hit the pylon? If so, then he is a runner and when he hit the pylon it should have been a TD.

Or, alternatively, is your position that the TE has control of the ball, but before he hit the pylon he lost control of the ball, and he fumbled it into the end zone, which should result in a touchback?

I just want to be clear on your understanding of the sequence of events, because my understanding may be wrong, but I want to be sure.

As he was crossing the pylon (i.e. endzone) he did not have control of the ball and only regained possession fully on the ground when he was at a bounds. This technically he did not possess the ball (and no one did) as the ball crossed the endzone. Hence, it's a touchback:

posternutbag · #23 10-18-2017, 05:15 PM

OK, now I understand. The TE made a reception short of the goal, the refs rule this a catch and then, before he hits the pylon, he fumbles the ball, the ball is in the end zone with no one having clear possession, so touchback. OK, I see. The only other option would be an incomplete pass.