Active Users:320 Time:29/04/2024 09:52:28 AM
A few years ago, I would have been inclined to agree. Joel Send a noteboard - 25/01/2012 12:55:33 PM
To score a touchdown when the receiver is already in the end zone, he has to establish control. Otherwise, all a person has to do is touch the football for it to count. Scoring in the end zone without possession is completely different than breaking the plane whenever you already have possession.


I understand the rules. I think the Raven's receiver did have control. Control implies possession. If the refs didn't think he did is bad officiating in my opinion. But that's a judgement call. One that just happened to badly blown. The receiver caught the ball, did not juggle it and got both feet down. Then the ball was knocked out. Asking anything more of the receiver is an inconsistency in the rule when compared with Brady's touchdown.

And what would stiff-arming a tackler be a penalty? The defensive penalties are called before the receiver gets a chance to catch the ball.


1. If after the offensive player catches the ball, can the defender be called for a penalty for purposely touching the ball carrier's head? Yes.

2. Linemen get called for "hands to the face" penalties. Both offense and defense.

Why does a ball carrier get a special exemption from the illegal use of hands rule? Especially when he does it on purpose?

Under current rules on receptions though, I see no way they could rule that a catch; he had it in his hands so briefly it is hard to argue he had control rather than just possession, which is no longer enough. The rule was actually altered to eliminate discussions like these by eliminating judgement calls by officials; now receivers have to move the ball or move with the ball in their possession. Thus "possession AND control."

Given all the ADVANTAGES receivers have been given in the past few years (e.g. the Bert Emmanuel rule, or the James Harrison rule putting an end to just hitting receivers hard enough they drop balls right after catching them) that new disadvantage does not bother me as much as it once did. That receivers must maintain control all they way to the ground when they go down bothers me more.

As far as "equal protection under the rules" I am FAR more annoyed by the absence of a running back equivalent of a James Harrison rule or anything like the protection quarterbacks enjoy. That the pounding running backs get prematurely shortens their careers is an NFL axiom, yet no one is wringing their hands over "hitting a defenseless running back." If a receiver gets a forearm to the head right as the ball arrives it is a fifteen yard penalty, fine and, if it has happened before, a suspension. If it happens to a running back taking a handoff, it is a "great hit" that causes a fumble. The difference between a suspension and a highlight reel is apparently whether you hit a receiver or a back. Gee, I wonder why offense is so explosive now; maybe it has something to do with the fact you can just throw the ball up and, even if it is not a catch, have a good chance of a first down by penalty. :rolleyes:

Basically, the NFL plays flag arena football now, unless you are a running back, in which case you will go down in a pile. The League has encouraged this so far because more scoring means more excitement and larger audiences, but expect them to retreat from that soon as the disgust of long time fans grows. More scoring gets 16 year old HS girls to watch the fourth quarter on TV 'cos the guy on the GQ cover is hot; guys wearing their twenty year old Payton jersey to games and buying foam fingers, beer and hot dogs are starting to wonder if rugby is fun to watch.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
/NFL: i am not watching the super bowl this year - 23/01/2012 04:32:52 AM 475 Views
The Pats may not even do as well as last time. - 23/01/2012 05:33:40 AM 472 Views
from a marketing perspective, this is a great matchup - 23/01/2012 02:38:07 PM 371 Views
Coughlins job ought to be safe at this point. - 24/01/2012 10:20:33 AM 463 Views
your novella does nothing to change my mind that this game will be worth watching - 25/01/2012 03:34:49 AM 278 Views
I definitely do not expect a blowout. - 25/01/2012 12:29:24 PM 406 Views
You remind me of video game fans who insist they won't buy BIG SERIES #2. - 23/01/2012 12:05:58 PM 315 Views
now i won't JUST TO SPITE YOU!!! *NM* - 23/01/2012 02:32:39 PM 169 Views
I just Pirate it. \o/ *NM* - 24/01/2012 04:55:56 AM 145 Views
I'm not thrilled by either. - 23/01/2012 12:52:09 PM 306 Views
Theank God I am back in school have no time to watch - 23/01/2012 02:21:01 PM 302 Views
What are you taking in school? Pleasure or work? *NM* - 25/01/2012 02:11:19 AM 138 Views
C++ and calculus - 26/01/2012 05:50:48 PM 278 Views
Re: C++ and calculus - 28/01/2012 06:06:10 AM 313 Views
people think I am crazy when I say math is fun - 28/01/2012 02:00:07 PM 283 Views
Hell, once the Bengals lost, there wasn't going to be any interesting matchup to me. - 23/01/2012 05:47:24 PM 445 Views
Brady was in possession of the ball before diving over the goal line - 23/01/2012 09:01:51 PM 288 Views
Yes. - 24/01/2012 05:29:34 PM 414 Views
A few years ago, I would have been inclined to agree. - 25/01/2012 12:55:33 PM 403 Views
That's cool, I don't even know who is in it - 23/01/2012 08:12:00 PM 352 Views
*NM* - 23/01/2012 08:18:24 PM 167 Views
I won't, either. - 25/01/2012 02:38:40 AM 340 Views
You love Brady and you know it! *NM* - 26/01/2012 02:28:35 AM 175 Views
He is better that the twerp - 26/01/2012 10:09:25 PM 284 Views
Barf! - 30/01/2012 10:24:00 AM 307 Views
The Giants are gonna win by 21. So you should watch. It will be fun. *NM* - 25/01/2012 07:06:06 PM 132 Views
the giants will lose but cover the spread - 26/01/2012 04:48:58 PM 294 Views
Re: the giants will lose but cover the spread - 27/01/2012 02:59:48 AM 320 Views
One nice thing about not being an actual football fan: - 26/01/2012 05:29:00 AM 302 Views

Reply to Message