OT: Super Bowl thoughts - Page 5

Torch of Silva · #41 02-08-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gannoncannon

Damn Silver, I haven't heard from you in a while! Good to see you on the raider forums again!

lol you know i'm keeping it real here in the east bay!

Great game last nite,Best team won,You heard Flip on this site.Tell me about da gurls at school.Da nasty stuff.

**Langlier** · #42 02-08-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crow

Caught the ball, the ball broke the plain of the goal line, the end.

which just further goes to show the screwing we (Murphy catch in endzone) took week 1

**Raider Outlaw** · #43 02-08-2010, 04:04 PM

It's a stupid rule, but they're clear about the difference. If you catch the ball in the end zone you have to control it to the ground. It was a different kind of play last night, but I agree the rule that affected Murphy is another dumb NFL rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langlier

which just further goes to show the screwing we (Murphy catch in endzone) took week 1

**JohnQ** · #44 02-08-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phxraida15

Guarantee if that was a Raider reciever on that goal line catch. It would have been incomplete.
Guaren fucking tee it!

I was thinking that exact thought after they overturned it.Ref was making the "juggle" signal at the time.Seemed he didn't have total control.but as I've said many times.After this season I don't know what "in control" really means.

Jack's sore libido · #45 02-08-2010, 06:53 PM

**SoCalRaider** · #46 02-08-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crow

Nope. Catch the ball in the field of play and all you have to do is break the plain. Anything after that is irrelevant.

Had he caught the ball in the endzone, then yes. He would have needed to control the ball throughout the play.

If there's any other rule that confuses you, you know how to reach me.

Well so much for letting the truth get in the way of a good story....

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFL Rulebook

"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."

So like.... when the rule applies to every point of the football field that includes the field of play as well as the end zone.... like... what part of the field was left out? Ya know.... to justify the rigging that took place on Sunday...

When ya figure it out.... I'll be right here waiting...

**Crow** · #47 02-08-2010, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langlier

which just further goes to show the screwing we (Murphy catch in endzone) took week 1

Bolded to show why the two plays are not comparable.

**Crow** · #48 02-08-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalRaider

Well so much for letting the truth get in the way of a good story....

So like.... when the rule applies to every point of the football field that includes the field of play as well as the end zone.... like... what part of the field was left out? Ya know.... to justify the rigging that took place on Sunday...

When ya figure it out.... I'll be right here waiting...

Link or stop crying.

Jack's sore libido · #49 02-09-2010, 12:43 AM

You stupid bitch ...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...n-the-end-zone

Here is the rule that applies:

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.

Just because you act like you know everything, doesn't mean you actually do, dumb fuck.

**RaiderJF** · #50 02-09-2010, 10:05 AM

I believe that the call was overturned on the basis that it was determined that the wr had (regained) control of the ball while he was on the ground (before the ball ever hit the ground)and that subsequently the ball (after he was down, maintained control, and crossed the goal-line) was knocked out of his hands by the Indy defender (essentially after the play was over). At least that was what I saw on replay. In any case, it was a bang-bang close call.

And if it were the Raiders making the catch, I don't doubt that it would have been called incomplete. But then again, I still don't by the Murphy call...