(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

So if a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, drags both feet in the endzone after catching the ball and, along with the ball, lands out of bounds, that's not a catch and TD?

(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

Agree. I feel that they should have to maintain possession going to the ground, just like a catch. A ball that is jarred loose or dropped prior to being "down" should be a loose ball - recovery by your team is a TD, recovery by the other is a touchback.

Keep the rule consistent between catches and rushing.

How about that index card first down call? Not a cowboys fan, but loved it.

(12-18-2017 12:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

Agree. I feel that they should have to maintain possession going to the ground, just like a catch. A ball that is jarred loose or dropped prior to being "down" should be a loose ball - recovery by your team is a TD, recovery by the other is a touchback.

Keep the rule consistent between catches and rushing.

Did the ball ever touch the ground? No replay I saw conclusively showed that enough to over come the ruling on the field. Everyone seems so interested in whether the ball moved (it did) but if it didn’t touch the ground it’s a catch as he was still in bounds. Looked like his right hand was always under the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-18-2017 12:18 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

So if a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, drags both feet in the endzone after catching the ball and, along with the ball, lands out of bounds, that's not a catch and TD?

I've thought about that. On the one hand, what you describe seems like it should be a score. On the other hand, the fullback who leaps airborne and gets knocked backward without ever touching the ground of the endzone should not be a score. Maybe the ideal rule would be that either the player with the ball or the ball itself has to touch the ground in the endzone. In any case, rule writing is tricky.

(12-18-2017 12:30 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  How about that index card first down call? Not a cowboys fan, but loved it.

Mildly related but Gene Steratore always seems to be having a blast on the field when refereeing. Cracks me up.

(12-18-2017 12:34 PM)jondon Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

Agree. I feel that they should have to maintain possession going to the ground, just like a catch. A ball that is jarred loose or dropped prior to being "down" should be a loose ball - recovery by your team is a TD, recovery by the other is a touchback.

Keep the rule consistent between catches and rushing.

Did the ball ever touch the ground? No replay I saw conclusively showed that enough to over come the ruling on the field. Everyone seems so interested in whether the ball moved (it did) but if it didn’t touch the ground it’s a catch as he was still in bounds. Looked like his right hand was always under the ball.

To me, it looked like one end hits the ground.. it wouldn't bounce the way it did if it hadn't

(12-18-2017 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:34 PM)jondon Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

Agree. I feel that they should have to maintain possession going to the ground, just like a catch. A ball that is jarred loose or dropped prior to being "down" should be a loose ball - recovery by your team is a TD, recovery by the other is a touchback.

Keep the rule consistent between catches and rushing.

Did the ball ever touch the ground? No replay I saw conclusively showed that enough to over come the ruling on the field. Everyone seems so interested in whether the ball moved (it did) but if it didn’t touch the ground it’s a catch as he was still in bounds. Looked like his right hand was always under the ball.

To me, it looked like one end hits the ground.. it wouldn't bounce the way it did if it hadn't

Maybe. That view sure doesn’t show any grass under his right hand.

It’s a really stupid rule and I think in this case everyone is so eager to look to see if he “completed the catch” they forgot to look whether he actually dropped the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-18-2017 01:02 PM)jondon Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:34 PM)jondon Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.

Agree. I feel that they should have to maintain possession going to the ground, just like a catch. A ball that is jarred loose or dropped prior to being "down" should be a loose ball - recovery by your team is a TD, recovery by the other is a touchback.

Keep the rule consistent between catches and rushing.

Did the ball ever touch the ground? No replay I saw conclusively showed that enough to over come the ruling on the field. Everyone seems so interested in whether the ball moved (it did) but if it didn’t touch the ground it’s a catch as he was still in bounds. Looked like his right hand was always under the ball.

To me, it looked like one end hits the ground.. it wouldn't bounce the way it did if it hadn't

Maybe. That view sure doesn’t show any grass under his right hand.

It’s a really stupid rule and I think in this case everyone is so eager to look to see if he “completed the catch” they forgot to look whether he actually dropped the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not see any way that the referee overturns the call on the field unless they were convinced it hit the ground and James did not have possession. That and every officiating expert after has agreed with the call.

Regardless, the game ended because Pittsburgh ran a janky slant pass into lots of traffic. That was the bigger wtf moment to me.

Steelers did their best to outdo Pete Carroll. Run the ball, kick the FG, go to OT. On the other hand, not sure that anyone could do worse than Pete's call-no way NE stops Lynch the way he was running the ball......

Boswell selected to the Pro Bowl!

That's awesome. Probably Rice's first Pro Bowler since Larry Izzo, who was a special teams selection three times. Since Izzo probably was an add-on and not part of the original selections (?), Boswell might be the first Rice guy to be a starter since Tommy Kramer maybe (or possibly Courtney Hall?)

According to the press release on riceowls.com,

'Boswell is the 12th Owl to be selected to the Pro Bowl and the first to earn the honor since Ryan Pontbriand was selected for the second consecutive year in 2009. Bill Howton holds the distinction of the most Pro Bowl selections for an Owl, earning four trips to the game during his career (1952, 1955-57).'

Boswell also should pass Howton for most career points scored in the NFL by an Owl (he is 27 points shy of Howton's career total of 366).

A lot of Baltimore Ravens fans are mad Justin Tucker is the alternate behind Boswell but tough, Tucker was the Pro Bowl kicker last year and this year is Boz's turn.

(12-19-2017 10:35 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  According to the press release on riceowls.com,

'Boswell is the 12th Owl to be selected to the Pro Bowl and the first to earn the honor since Ryan Pontbriand was selected for the second consecutive year in 2009. Bill Howton holds the distinction of the most Pro Bowl selections for an Owl, earning four trips to the game during his career (1952, 1955-57).'

Boswell also should pass Howton for most career points scored in the NFL by an Owl (he is 27 points shy of Howton's career total of 366).

A lot of Baltimore Ravens fans are mad Justin Tucker is the alternate behind Boswell but tough, Tucker was the Pro Bowl kicker last year and this year is Boz's turn.

Odd given that Tucker is 6th in the NFL in FG %. So dunno why they'd have an issue with it.

Boswell trails Gostkowski (NE) and Santos (KC) in FG % In the AFC though. Actually tied with Gostkowski (trailing in XPM).Pro bowl is not a exact science though.. So the above is grossly overthinking it.

Congrats to Boz!

(12-20-2017 12:03 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 10:35 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  According to the press release on riceowls.com,

'Boswell is the 12th Owl to be selected to the Pro Bowl and the first to earn the honor since Ryan Pontbriand was selected for the second consecutive year in 2009. Bill Howton holds the distinction of the most Pro Bowl selections for an Owl, earning four trips to the game during his career (1952, 1955-57).'

Boswell also should pass Howton for most career points scored in the NFL by an Owl (he is 27 points shy of Howton's career total of 366).

A lot of Baltimore Ravens fans are mad Justin Tucker is the alternate behind Boswell but tough, Tucker was the Pro Bowl kicker last year and this year is Boz's turn.

Odd given that Tucker is 6th in the NFL in FG %. So dunno why they'd have an issue with it.

Boswell trails Gostkowski (NE) and Santos (KC) in FG % In the AFC though. Actually tied with Gostkowski (trailing in XPM).Pro bowl is not a exact science though.. So the above is grossly overthinking it.

Congrats to Boz!

Santos isn't the kicker for KC anymore. Harrison Butker is.

I think what got Boz over the top was his game-winning kicks plus Steelers have one of the most rabid fanbases so probably stuffed the ballot box.

(12-20-2017 12:17 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:03 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 10:35 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  According to the press release on riceowls.com,

'Boswell is the 12th Owl to be selected to the Pro Bowl and the first to earn the honor since Ryan Pontbriand was selected for the second consecutive year in 2009. Bill Howton holds the distinction of the most Pro Bowl selections for an Owl, earning four trips to the game during his career (1952, 1955-57).'

Boswell also should pass Howton for most career points scored in the NFL by an Owl (he is 27 points shy of Howton's career total of 366).

A lot of Baltimore Ravens fans are mad Justin Tucker is the alternate behind Boswell but tough, Tucker was the Pro Bowl kicker last year and this year is Boz's turn.

Odd given that Tucker is 6th in the NFL in FG %. So dunno why they'd have an issue with it.

Boswell trails Gostkowski (NE) and Santos (KC) in FG % In the AFC though. Actually tied with Gostkowski (trailing in XPM).Pro bowl is not a exact science though.. So the above is grossly overthinking it.

Congrats to Boz!

Santos isn't the kicker for KC anymore. Harrison Butker is.

I think what got Boz over the top was his game-winning kicks plus Steelers have one of the most rabid fanbases so probably stuffed the ballot box.

Sorry - mixed the lists. Yes - Butker, not Santos. Whoops.

The ballot box is why I had mentioned inexact science. It is a popularity contest to some degree (Tebow made a pro bowl alternate, for example and there likely isn't a less deserving player not named Jamarcus Russel in the league).

Still, awesome for Boz - he's been clutch. I'm hoping he can make the All Pro team.. That would be awesome.. and IMO, a real special thing.

Tucker's misses are from like 60 and 56 yards (plus one was blocked).

(12-18-2017 01:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 01:02 PM)jondon Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:34 PM)jondon Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Agree. I feel that they should have to maintain possession going to the ground, just like a catch. A ball that is jarred loose or dropped prior to being "down" should be a loose ball - recovery by your team is a TD, recovery by the other is a touchback.

Keep the rule consistent between catches and rushing.

Did the ball ever touch the ground? No replay I saw conclusively showed that enough to over come the ruling on the field. Everyone seems so interested in whether the ball moved (it did) but if it didn’t touch the ground it’s a catch as he was still in bounds. Looked like his right hand was always under the ball.

To me, it looked like one end hits the ground.. it wouldn't bounce the way it did if it hadn't

Maybe. That view sure doesn’t show any grass under his right hand.

It’s a really stupid rule and I think in this case everyone is so eager to look to see if he “completed the catch” they forgot to look whether he actually dropped the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not see any way that the referee overturns the call on the field unless they were convinced it hit the ground and James did not have possession. That and every officiating expert after has agreed with the call.

Regardless, the game ended because Pittsburgh ran a janky slant pass into lots of traffic. That was the bigger wtf moment to me.

Did anyone else realize that Rice has a HUGE connection to these types of calls?

I just learned that Bert Emanuel was at the center of what is basically the first time officials dealt with this type of call.

Going to try and make it through this article at some point today: https://deadspin.com/bert-emanuel-who-st...1821393650

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-to...el-s-catch

Yep it used to be called the Bert Emanuel rule a long time ago and i think he dealt with it twice in the playoffs, once with the Falcons and once with the Bucs.

Vance McDonald is a big factor for the Steelers. Steeler fans were talking about him needing to be healthy for Pats game. He adds another dimension to the offense. An elite run blocker and a faster, more explosive passing game option than James. The only critiques of Vance are that he's injury-prone and drops some balls. Prior to the shoulder injury he was on pace for a career game vs Ravens, and his run blocking is what's impressed me most. The run game just looks different with him in. A lot of Steeler fans feel that way. Now that he has an elite QB throwing to him in a stacked offense, he's going to have plenty of opportunities.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Steelers to face Pats with all the Killer B's available for a full game.