NoSaint

I don’t think I agree with what you see but I definitely appreciate you outlining it. Not arguing just to be argumentative here but truly didn’t get what you were seeing before that.

At a very simplified glance, yes. would a late slap be worse than a dozen occurrences of the Davis hit? Obviously no. so I think we agree both severity and frequency of transgression matters. Based on the short outline it looks like in a vacuum Gronk gets suspended and Davis gets a fine. But Davis being a repeat offender comes with escalators. Less outrageous depending on the details of the resume.

I do generally agree with the sentiment but think you have to look at the totality. He wasn’t suspended 2 games for a single hit. He was suspended 2 games for a series of hits, with this being the most recent. That’s why I’m pressing a bit on the history.

Ignoring your made up standard. What do you assert is between the grass and the ball? I say nothing and do believe we see that. But even in entertaining your opinion, if we can eliminate all the possible body parts - then you can prove there’s nothing between without seeing the actual contact

That’s not truly the standard. if I showed you a picture of the receivers hands a foot from the ball, and no reasonable parts under but the view of the edge touching the ground is blocked— obviously you can extrapolate and make the call. this is the less extreme version. Unless you can reasonably articulate what’s under the ball the ref can go with the ground being under it. I see the same issue- the hand is too far outside and forward on the ball to be underneath the back half (the low point). elbow hits causing him to lose his left hands control and thereby jostling the ball as the back half hits the ground. He’s still got hands on it so it doesn’t fly away but it moves while touching the ground. What fingers do you see under the ball?

What part of it? Most is visible in the photo and not under the ball.

In the photo with the “ball comes loose” text added in this thread... what is between the ball and grass? We see two non consecutive fingers on the upper and outside part of the ball. To have fingers on the lower half towards the center would take an oddly shaped hand, no?

To be fair the cooks one looks like a bad call but the jets seemed to be a fumble and yesterday looks incomplete But you can see multiple and non consecutive fingers not under it. He’d have to have a freakish thumb and ring finger to be under the ball, no? Can you show a pic illustrating a reasonable spot his hand could be under it?

But what was the incident? Just one incident? You get what I’m asking.

What is the history on Davis? Seems highly relevant to the debate and I don’t recall the hit(s) prior to this

Dramatic much? If the expectation is they have to be perfect or else all hell breaks lose than of course the issue might be more fans than league. i still don’t get what y’all are arguing is under the ball besides the ground though.

Isnt it only in the pocket? Essentially they are treated as defenseless when looking downfield. As a runner/blocker they can be hit in the head (within same legal bounds as any other player) That puts a lot on suh processing things in the moment. Whether or not you think he did it I have a hard time buying a complex sell in a split second. I’d venture it was just “suh smash” and the rest is us trying to create narratives

Lattimore has been better. That’s not an insult to white. Whites been beyond all expectations and deserves a lot of praise but lattimore has been absolute top notch.

The hot read shouldn’t have been to the center of the defense either. Fade or an out. He checked into a trash read and then forced it in. If you think that that fans will feel happier with refs using more judgement... well... a lot think following the letter of the rule is cheating for the pats. Imagine if we gave actual leeway to make a judgment call there instead.

If a receiver gets the ball while going to the ground it is impossible for him to fumble. Either he holds the ball through the fall or it is incomplete. if you want to argue it’s a bad rule, go ahead. But denying it’s the actual rule is not productive. I see a hand above and the hand beside has pinky and index visible. Is the argument that his middle and ring are underneath and the only thing the call contacts?

He had had a pretty short resume of success. I think there’s a reasonable expectation of him being up and down - plus injury. Plus it seems there may be some disconnect behind the scenes. i think he’s in the to be determined category, but the raiders had to give the deal

Or a rule book ?

So if for only a split second it’s still on his hands - literally fractions of a second- while a knee coincidentally touches... TD? How instantaneous is it that the ball can pause in a players super sticky glove to actually complete possessing it? (Just devils advocate that there isn’t a rule that could be written that perfectly eliminates this feeling some weeks)

It’s always a 30 page thread of shock and awe over the refs not knowing the rule despite the calls being pretty consistent and I’d venture a ton of fans knowing it. to the rest of the post though: how would you change the rule given the opportunity to do so?

You keep saying that last line but it’s simply not true. I encourage you to dig deeper before representing that as the rule.

Agreed romo is great. The bad ones often get the rules wrong. The good ones often teach great shorthand cheats for understanding the rules but neglect the nuance or situational variations leaving us thing we know when we only really know regular occurrences but not the exceptions. Often our longest threads on refs flow back to the differences between those memorable catch phrases vs the rarely occurring variations (football move or all you have to do is break the goal line in this thread, but even phrases like helmet to helmet were a common issue for a stretch with people over applying the phrase)

On your feet, yes. falling, no.

Unfortunately I think you are trying to apply common sense and judgment instead of following the letter of the rule. The rules around catches have become in a lot of ways simplified bright lines to take the refs out of the calls. sideline- you are in or out falling- you basically have to hold it through landing (and practically getting back up) to be safe. There’s no act or moment to seek during what can be complicated tangles of bodies coming down. There’s not much judgment left for the ref. Kept the ball the whole way or lost the ball. When falling the phrase “football move” doesn’t exist in the rule book. You can say it but the ref can’t.

I think the answer varies between those that saw him catch hundreds of balls vs those that only saw pro drops. thats not to say he has a free pass but I suspect that how wide the leeway is on a transition into the league varies with how familiar you are with the guy at his best, not just his worst

That was re-written not long ago to get rid of additional layer of subjectivity. Feet are in or out and the ref isn’t trying to interpret intent or hypothetical outcomes in the moment. Honestly, the catch rules aren’t THAT hard if you take a few minutes to understand the theory flowing through them and accept you aren’t going to write a paragraph or couple billet points to define and govern every single way a ball, player, opponents and the field could possibly interact and make everyone happy