You were saying?
Posted on 11/20/2011 1:11:56 PM PST by djf
I'm sick of this BS. Last weekend I saw probably three plays that were called TDs, even though the player never set foot in the endzone.
They just called a Bengals play not a TD even though the player was plainly in possession, steps into the endzone, then drops the ball after he's knocked to the ground!
Yes, just cost me 6 points in fantasy:) Complete BS.
i agree....make up your mind, itz an auto td as soon as the ball breaks the plane of the goaline, OR ITZ NOT...
When the NFL had their first big walk out and because of their UNION years back I stopped watching pro football. Besides, like pro basketball it is full of dumb thugs. If there was no more football tomorrow I would not notice.
It seems silly that as a taxpayer I have had to pay for stadiums to be built. In many ways the owners of NFL franchises are like Solyndra. They can’t run their businesses without what are effectively outright grants but the free money continues forever which makes some of them worse than Solyndra.
>>>They just called a Bengals play not a TD even though the player was plainly in possession, steps into the endzone, then drops the ball after he’s knocked to the ground!
Pass play? On pass plays, they have to keep the ball all the way through hitting the ground.
How come, if the runner dives into the corner of the end zone and reaches with the ball to get it inside the pylon while the player himself never lands in the end zone, it's a TD?
But if the receiver is also inside the end zone and leaps up to catch the ball, and does catch it inside the plane of the endzone but lands outside the plane, it's not a TD?
-PJ
Actually, the worst rule in sports, is the college basketball rule where you can call time out as you’re flying out of bounds.
I saw two plays last weekend where the offense runs out of bounds right before the pylon and holds the ball at extended length and THEY CALLED IT A TD!!!
The Bengals player just plainly stepped into the end zone, got knocked out of bouds and let go of the ball, and it’s no td.
What the fudge?
And I got no skin in the game, I just think a good effot should get it’s due, not some deal where if you have longer arms than somebody else you can score more TD’s because you can reach farther!
It’s pretty lame...
Did you bet the over or the under?
PACKERS ARE 10 & OH!!
A legal catch requires a landing with both feet in-bounds. Technically, the ball "broke the plane" in midair before it got anywhere near the receiver.
Not me, I got zip on this...
Pretty good game so far. Just seems that the rule changes make things alot more subjective.
Football is starting to seem like a stupid sport to watch.
The officials and players both seem like a bunch of jerks.
The announcers speak like they are drinking adult beverages.
The fans are all drunk too. Football is just another reason to drink!
This is why I watch soccer.
If they have possession of the ball with the ball in the end zone it’s a touchdown, if they don’t get possession until the ball is out of the end zone it’s not. Really quite simple actually.
You can put me down as sick of it too.
But then you can put me down as sick of a bunch of overpaid, spoiled brat entertainers who get paid millions to put on their entertainment in a multi gazzilion dollar facility for which I had to help pay for through my tax dollars so the owners of these entertainment companies (football teams) can have a place to put on their shows and make more money.
When is the government going to buy ME a place to do business?
(Oops! Did I just go on a rant??? LOL)
They don't EVER score in soccer, do they?
You were saying?
>>even though the player never set foot in the endzone<<
“Setting foot” in the end zone has never been part of the rule in any rules code. Not sure what you are arguing. Do you not like tennis being played with nets? Basketball with a round ball? Car racing with cars with tires? About as silly.
>>These rule changes are BS<<
You never referred to any actual changes.
>>the player was plainly in possession, steps into the endzone, then drops the ball after he’s knocked to the ground<<
Then by definition, he wasn’t in possession. And even if he was, it didn’t meet the definition of a catch. I’m not sure why that’s irritating. What would your proposed definition of a catch be?
>>How come, if the runner dives into the corner of the end zone and reaches with the ball to get it inside the pylon while the player himself never lands in the end zone, it’s a TD?<<
Because the ball crossed the plane of the line in player possession. TD. The goal line actually runs out of bounds as well. However, if the ball crosses the extended goal line, the player must at least touch in bounds or the ball is placed where it went out of bounds.
>>But if the receiver is also inside the end zone and leaps up to catch the ball, and does catch it inside the plane of the endzone but lands outside the plane, it’s not a TD?<<
It isn’t in player possession nor is it a catch until he lands. Makes perfect sense.
>>I saw two plays last weekend where the offense runs out of bounds right before the pylon and holds the ball at extended length and THEY CALLED IT A TD!!!<<
What is surprising? It is a correct call!
>>I just think a good effot should get it’s due, not some deal where if you have longer arms than somebody else you can score more TD’s because you can reach farther!<<
You probably won’t be invited on the rules committee!
There are some quirky rules, but none listed here are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.