MPT

We had to go out and sign John Brown to the roster this week and Khalil Shakir has 8 catches on the season.

Their special teams are trash. That's about the only weakness I see. Also Gardner-Johnson is on IR now so that's a big blow but he might be back for playoffs.

Whoa that was a nasty looking injury for Lawrence. Lions defender should probably be ejected for that play.

He returned a fumble for a TD but it was reviewed and called back as an incomplete pass.

Jerry Hughes with a TD! Nvm, overturned.

That comes after the massage

Jeudy just made a catch that's very relevant to Poyer's overturned pick. Caught it, tucked it, went to the ground, then the ball popped out. Surprise, surprise, it's ruled a catch!

That play was worse because Burks didn't duck into the hit and the defender led helmet to helmet. Any news on whether the Eagles DB was ejected?

Where on earth did you get those odds with the 49ers favored?

Your poorly spelled post finally convinced me! You're absolutely right, despite having nothing to back up your argument.

Look, guys, I'm sorry to rain on your referee fan club parade. The defender had one goal on this play: get to the punter and try to block the kick. He put a lot of effort into it and actually succeeded in doing so. It was just too late. There was no "toss" or "throw" by Johnson; he got absolutely manhandled and pushed to the side. When the defender disengages from him to dive at Martin, Johnson is just left standing there because he had zero control over the defender. Just for your reference, this is the part of the rule you guys are concerned with: "6. occurs because a defender is pushed or blocked (causing a change of direction) into the kicker" Show me where the defender makes anything but a straight intentional path to the punter. You can't, because there's video of him doing just that. Show me where Johnson pushes or blocks the defender into Martin. You can't, because he's obviously attempting (although failing) to block the defender away from Martin. This is like some Stockholm syndrome stuff you guys got going on. "Oh no, the defender couldn't have possibly done what he did even though that's exactly what he was trying to do! It's actually our fault they missed it!"

That play gets called almost every time. The defender's goal in that situation is to get through the block and try to block the punt. The only thing keeping them from constantly diving at punters' legs is this rule and it's enforced liberally because it's so easy to injure a punter doing that, which ended up happening to Martin. The Patriots got called for running into the kicker last week, in fact, despite barely touching the punter's kicking foot. The play we're talking about this week is described verbatim in the rule as being the more serious infraction and subject to a personal foul.

The defender bull rushed right past Johnson into Martin. Johnson was trying to block him away from Martin and got bulldozed out of the way. Please explain how someone blocks a defender into the punter with his back to the punter.

This was one of the few calls the refs got right in the game. His feet were in front of the goal line when he threw the ball so no safety. There's never any "if the play had continued..." speculation involved in sports because nobody can know what would have happened.

Running into the kicker is when they contact the kicking leg or cause the kicker to land on top of them. Roughing the kicker is when they contact the plant leg or both legs on the ground, which he clearly did. The defender bull rushed right through Johnson. Johnson barely got in the guy's way, let alone "threw him" anywhere.

He wasn't blocked into him. He pushed through the blocker to get to the punter and dove at his feet. Textbook roughing the kicker. Item 1. Roughing the kicker. It is a foul for roughing the kicker if a defensive player: 1. contacts the plant leg of the kicker while his kicking leg is still in the air 2. slides into or contacts the kicker when both of the kicker’s feet are on the ground. It is not a foul if the contact is not severe, or if the kicker returns both feet to the ground prior to the contact and falls over a defender on the ground

That only applies if he hasn't first demonstrated a football move, one of which is explicitly stated in the rule as tucking the ball away. Which Poyer did.

Based on what? Certainly not the rules or common sense.

Exactly. You say the play is over when the player touches out of bounds with possession, and you also say possession depends on maintaining control. So if he doesn't maintain control, he never had possession. That applies in bounds or out of bounds equally. My argument is that Poyer demonstrated control by tucking the ball before he went out of bounds. If he hadn't demonstrated control, he wouldn't have possession and the pass would be incomplete.

Obviously the play was over as soon as he touched it out of bounds. That hypothetical is silly and you know it. The question is: where is the line between juggling the ball and possessing the ball? The catch rule defines it, and I agree with setting some standards to possession that are more than "he had the ball in his hands at some point". What I have an issue with is the inconsistency with which the NFL applies the rule.

Right, but you have to qualify the catch itself somehow. If Poyer had caught it and then immediately went to the ground and the ball came loose I wouldn't have any problem calling that incomplete even though he landed out of bounds with the ball in his hands. It just wouldn't make any sense to award a catch if the player can't maintain control for the fraction of a second that it takes to hit the ground. To qualify the catch, the catch rule requires a football move in order to prove that the player has control of the ball (condition "c" referenced below). When the player goes to the ground out of bounds, the rule says the following: "If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds" I have no problem with the rule itself. It's just applied inconsistently and often incorrectly. Like in this case, where (c) was fulfilled by Poyer tucking the ball so the above stipulation shouldn't have applied.

The comments I saw mostly agreed that he couldn't have avoided contact and the receiver ducked into the hit. I'm sure there are differing opinions based on who posted the video.

First of all, "avoid contact all together" is not a tenet any football player should ever operate under while the ball is in play. Secondly, the hit on Diggs you referenced was very different. That defender came in late with plenty of time to pull up. It was an intentional attempt to injure. Hamlin's hit came while the ball was still in play and, even if he wanted to allow the receiver to catch a TD uncontested (which is ridiculous), he did not have time to avoid contact.

Objectively, I don't think I would count a toe tap as a step. I think the spirit of the rule is to affirm the player had control of the ball long enough and a toe tap can happen in a tenth of a second. To me, that wouldn't prove the player had control. However, tucking the ball away and only having it come loose when he hits the ground would, to me, affirm that he controlled the catch.

I did not realize it actually specified that! My bad