Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JeffAtlanta; SoothingDave; beyond the sea
If steveegg is correct and the old rule dictated that the receiver must hold on to the ball through the collision with the ground then that seems like it was sufficient. I'm not sure what the "football move" language is disambiguating.

Actually, the "old" rule was mere possession (control was implied, and the ball could not touch the ground at all during the establishment of possession) with 2 feet/1 knee down inbounds or the receiver demonstrably forced out of bounds by the defender's contact. This was changed and separated roughly 2003 (which also added that the ball could touch the ground during the act of possession and control if the ground didn't aid in establishing possession/control). Without a defender's contact resulting in a knee (or equivalent "downing-by-contact" body part) hitting the ground, it became possession, control, and either a football move (which included going out of bounds), or a scoring play. With a defender's contact resulting in a "down-by-contact" situation, the possession/control had to extend through the contact with the ground.

The "football move" part of the rule had been loosely interpreted until this year, with the refs typically taking the view that the move could occur simultaneously with the establishment of possession and control. This year, however, they started saying that the "football move" was a distinct, separate move from simply getting two feet or one knee down while in possession, or even establishing control (which had further been defined in 2004 in instances where the ball eventually comes loose as being able to make, for example, a controlled lateral while in the field of play after establishing the classic 2 feet/1 knee possession). Now, in mid-playoffs, the zebras further redefined "football move" to eliminate an attempt to get up to advance the ball.

224 posted on 01/16/2006 11:11:40 AM PST by steveegg (Take two - throw those long knives at the DemonRATs and lieberals - and include the RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]


To: steveegg

From AP:

"The issue was whether he had possession. The ball came loose when he was getting up. Pete Morelli determined it wasn't a catch," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "That was his judgment."

In other words, the NFL is distancing themselves from the ruling while still keeping their options open when fining Joey Porter for stating that the refs were trying to influence the outcome of the game.


230 posted on 01/16/2006 11:28:21 AM PST by pghkevin (Have you hugged your kids today? Have you thanked someone in the Military today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies ]

To: steveegg
Now, in mid-playoffs, the zebras further redefined "football move" to eliminate an attempt to get up to advance the ball.

The zebras are becoming absurd!

I just watched a one hour sum-up show on ESPN. The two guys on there were ripping the refs for the Palumalo call. I never heard such disgust in these guys' voices. They said it was pitiful, they nearly said it looked like a fix it was so bad, but they backed off that. They knew that would not be cool with the league.

Anyhow, the "football move" thing must be cleared up.

Yesterday the league came out with a statement that the call "was a judgment call" by the official. And today everyone who has played pro football and is on these media shows says that "judgment" sucks.

***

By the way, how long was that delay taken to reverse that interception call ....... I think it was about seven or eight minutes in all.

251 posted on 01/16/2006 2:01:29 PM PST by beyond the sea (Cal Thomas: If only Bork had cried ...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson