Apparently there is a rule preventing safeties due to momentum taking a player into the end zone.
Learn something new everyday.
I think that applies to players chasing after the ball toward the end zone. Sure. But rolling in? Why wasn't he rolling when he was grabbing for the ball?
The only way for it to become a safety is if he rolled into the end zone, got up, ran out of the end zone, and then ended up back in the end zone and down. Otherwise, the worst that could happen is he gets forward progress at the 1.
*or if he got up in the end zone and committed a foul.
So wait.. the end zone functions as like, the sideline does for out of bounds? Does that make sense? Any other situation it doesn't matter how far back you are extended
Weird
Yeah. See downing punts.
But not for catching touchdowns..
I dunno. I don't buy he didn't have possession until his leg touched. I think it would've just been a kind of shitty result, the kind that happens in madden and you're like fucking really? A safety?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
It was obviously not a safety and if it was that rule would get changed REAL fast. People would not fuckin' stand for turnovers easily turning into safeties.
So wait.. the end zone functions as like, the sideline does for out of bounds? Does that make sense? Any other situation it doesn't matter how far back you are extended
Weird
Yeah. See downing punts.
But not for catching touchdowns..
I dunno. I don't buy he didn't have possession until his leg touched. I think it would've just been a kind of shitty result, the kind that happens in madden and you're like fucking really? A safety?
Rules are different for when the ball is in hand vs when the ball is loose, IIRC.
hippofant on
0
Options
Fondor_YardsElite Four Member: HydraRegistered Userregular
How did the Packers not get that fumble?
Secrets, lies, and tragedy. The trifecta.
3DS Code: 5043-2172-1361
Xbone Tag: Salal al Din
It was obviously not a safety and if it was that rule would get changed REAL fast. People would not fuckin' stand for turnovers easily turning into safeties.
It was the equivalent of if Malcolm butler dove backwards into the end zone after picking Russell at the 1
You obviously shouldn't be allowed to do that but how are you going to try and distinguish intentional from unintentional without causing shitstorms
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
+1
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Packers receive at half. A TD here puts them back in it.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
That was a hit
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Apparently there is a rule preventing safeties due to momentum taking a player into the end zone.
Learn something new everyday.
I think that applies to players chasing after the ball toward the end zone. Sure. But rolling in? Why wasn't he rolling when he was grabbing for the ball?
The only way for it to become a safety is if he rolled into the end zone, got up, ran out of the end zone, and then ended up back in the end zone and down. Otherwise, the worst that could happen is he gets forward progress at the 1.
*or if he got up in the end zone and committed a foul.
By that logic, a player could intercept a pass inside the twenty and then run hell for leather into the end zone just to get better field position. The player literally had possession of the ball and then rolled himself into the end zone. Plus, the idea that he was 'in' the end zone because his foot was on the line like a wrestler with his leg on the ropes is really silly as y2jake points out. And anyway he wasn't downing a punt, which is basically a dead ball play. The ball was live and could be advanced (or not) by any player in possession of it.
It was obviously not a safety and if it was that rule would get changed REAL fast. People would not fuckin' stand for turnovers easily turning into safeties.
It was the equivalent of if Malcolm butler dove backwards into the end zone after picking Russell at the 1
You obviously shouldn't be allowed to do that but how are you going to try and distinguish intentional from unintentional without causing shitstorms
But also, Butler could've just fallen down where he was because the momentum of making that catch absolutely carried him back into the end zone.
I hope you appreciate that I went and rewatched that play so I could have an accurate response here.
It was obviously not a safety and if it was that rule would get changed REAL fast. People would not fuckin' stand for turnovers easily turning into safeties.
It was the equivalent of if Malcolm butler dove backwards into the end zone after picking Russell at the 1
You obviously shouldn't be allowed to do that but how are you going to try and distinguish intentional from unintentional without causing shitstorms
But also, Butler could've just fallen down where he was because the momentum of making that catch absolutely carried him back into the end zone.
I hope you appreciate that I went and rewatched that play so I could have an accurate response here.
I did too! And I'm not really buying the official explanation that he didn't have possession until his leg was touching. Seemed like he had possession beforehand. I can see possession on the 1 but touchback seems like a stretch
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Wow.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
0
Options
Fondor_YardsElite Four Member: HydraRegistered Userregular
Well you don't see a lot of fingertip sacks.
Secrets, lies, and tragedy. The trifecta.
3DS Code: 5043-2172-1361
Xbone Tag: Salal al Din
Apparently there is a rule preventing safeties due to momentum taking a player into the end zone.
Learn something new everyday.
I think that applies to players chasing after the ball toward the end zone. Sure. But rolling in? Why wasn't he rolling when he was grabbing for the ball?
The only way for it to become a safety is if he rolled into the end zone, got up, ran out of the end zone, and then ended up back in the end zone and down. Otherwise, the worst that could happen is he gets forward progress at the 1.
*or if he got up in the end zone and committed a foul.
By that logic, a player could intercept a pass inside the twenty and then run hell for leather into the end zone just to get better field position. The player literally had possession of the ball and then rolled himself into the end zone. Plus, the idea that he was 'in' the end zone because his foot was on the line like a wrestler with his leg on the ropes is really silly as y2jake points out. And anyway he wasn't downing a punt, which is basically a dead ball play. The ball was live and could be advanced (or not) by any player in possession of it.
If you want, don't compare to punts: compare to kick-offs. Same rule applies, even though the ball is live and can be advanced by any player.
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Apparently there is a rule preventing safeties due to momentum taking a player into the end zone.
Learn something new everyday.
I think that applies to players chasing after the ball toward the end zone. Sure. But rolling in? Why wasn't he rolling when he was grabbing for the ball?
The only way for it to become a safety is if he rolled into the end zone, got up, ran out of the end zone, and then ended up back in the end zone and down. Otherwise, the worst that could happen is he gets forward progress at the 1.
*or if he got up in the end zone and committed a foul.
By that logic, a player could intercept a pass inside the twenty and then run hell for leather into the end zone just to get better field position. The player literally had possession of the ball and then rolled himself into the end zone. Plus, the idea that he was 'in' the end zone because his foot was on the line like a wrestler with his leg on the ropes is really silly as y2jake points out. And anyway he wasn't downing a punt, which is basically a dead ball play. The ball was live and could be advanced (or not) by any player in possession of it.
That would just give them possession wherever he intercepted the ball, because of forward progress.
I agree that the spot was questionable, but it wasn't a safety.
Here's the relevant rulings from the NFL rulebook (3.2.7.2): - I think, based on a skimming of the book.
Item 2. Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a
player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands,
completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent. If the player loses the ball
while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in
the field of play and in the end zone....
(2) If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to
secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until
after his initial contact with the ground, or there is no possession.
(3) If a player would have caught, intercepted, or recovered a ball inbounds, but is carried out of bounds, player
possession will be granted (8-1-3-Item 6).
11.5.1:
It is not a safety:
(2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass,
scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball
is declared dead in his team’s possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player’s foot
or other body part touched the ground to establish possession.
hippofant on
0
Options
Fondor_YardsElite Four Member: HydraRegistered Userregular
Wow what a terrible throw.
Secrets, lies, and tragedy. The trifecta.
3DS Code: 5043-2172-1361
Xbone Tag: Salal al Din
Posts
If the Packers had a Secondary of any kind I would agree.
As is...
Fire. Dom. Capers.
That's it, folks.
Official calls are never wrong.
When you're starting at "Zero taste", it's not much of a leap.
The only way for it to become a safety is if he rolled into the end zone, got up, ran out of the end zone, and then ended up back in the end zone and down. Otherwise, the worst that could happen is he gets forward progress at the 1.
*or if he got up in the end zone and committed a foul.
But not for catching touchdowns..
I dunno. I don't buy he didn't have possession until his leg touched. I think it would've just been a kind of shitty result, the kind that happens in madden and you're like fucking really? A safety?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Rules are different for when the ball is in hand vs when the ball is loose, IIRC.
3DS Code: 5043-2172-1361
Xbone Tag: Salal al Din
Packers D gonna Packers D.
It was the equivalent of if Malcolm butler dove backwards into the end zone after picking Russell at the 1
You obviously shouldn't be allowed to do that but how are you going to try and distinguish intentional from unintentional without causing shitstorms
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
By that logic, a player could intercept a pass inside the twenty and then run hell for leather into the end zone just to get better field position. The player literally had possession of the ball and then rolled himself into the end zone. Plus, the idea that he was 'in' the end zone because his foot was on the line like a wrestler with his leg on the ropes is really silly as y2jake points out. And anyway he wasn't downing a punt, which is basically a dead ball play. The ball was live and could be advanced (or not) by any player in possession of it.
But also, Butler could've just fallen down where he was because the momentum of making that catch absolutely carried him back into the end zone.
I hope you appreciate that I went and rewatched that play so I could have an accurate response here.
I did too! And I'm not really buying the official explanation that he didn't have possession until his leg was touching. Seemed like he had possession beforehand. I can see possession on the 1 but touchback seems like a stretch
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
3DS Code: 5043-2172-1361
Xbone Tag: Salal al Din
If you want, don't compare to punts: compare to kick-offs. Same rule applies, even though the ball is live and can be advanced by any player.
That would just give them possession wherever he intercepted the ball, because of forward progress.
I agree that the spot was questionable, but it wasn't a safety.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Giggity.
QB called "10" so it wasn't even worth it to catch it yknow
11.5.1:
3DS Code: 5043-2172-1361
Xbone Tag: Salal al Din
Like the announcers said it was basically a punt with the upside of potentially being a huge play.
I do think all the hits are starting to rattle Rodgers a bit, though, because that did not look like his normal hail mary type throw.
True, but I think our run game would've let us do more than what we've seen from GB so far.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin