chongli

But I am wondering how long he must maintain control for it to be considered a football move. The rule I quoted above states: "after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. " So if he is landing out of bounds after dragging his feet while maintaining total control of the ball, would that be long enough to be considered a football move according to the above? If he is diving out of bounds to catch the ball (while dragging his feet of course), he doesn't have time for extending it, turning upfield, etc. This is why I honestly liked the old rule of simply having to control the ball at the second both feet (or your second foot) hit the ground. This football move stuff is BS.

But I would rather Tampa Bay win, have them get the number one NFC seed, thereby having an easier path to the SB, and then for us to finally beat them then in the SB and lay the ghost of Brady to rest. Brady announces his final retirement and forever remembers it is the Bills who beat him in his last game. D*ldos go flying onto the field.

If it is legal catch (meaning a football move has been made after he catches the ball with possession and both feet in bounds), then it would be spotted where the ball crossed the plane of the sideline, like the Lamar case today. But if the ball takes him out of bounds while making the catch, even if he drags his feet, there is no football move, so it is not a legal catch. Maybe I am wrong again. But this is what I read: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-catch-rules-2020-explained/1lvsxrgnc6mf31qllioc0ll80k "A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds: secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. Notes: Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control. 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" So I would assume a football move is necessary.

So when and where does he catch the ball? Both his feet need to land in bounds with possession of the ball and a football move then needs to be made for it to be a catch. If he caught it with both feet in bounds and gets legal possession he then becomes a runner. But if he didn't make a football move after the catch, and this catch takes him out of bounds while dragging his feet, then I don't think it's a legal catch because no football move has been made. Maybe I am wrong.

Yep, a smart play I have seen some players do is if the ball from a kickoff is rolling close to the sideline, but won't go out, the return man stands out of bounds and then picks up the ball. The ball is then considered a kickoff out of bounds, a penalty flag is thrown, and the receiving team gets awarded big yardage.

Maybe I am reading your post wrong, but if a receiver catches the ball inbounds, he becomes a runner after the catch become legal. So if he then dove out of bounds to reach the first-down marker, the ball would be spotted where the ball crossed the sideline, just like in the Lamar Jackson play today. But if he catches the ball but his first contact with the ground is out of bounds, then it is not a catch.

LOL. So true: "The Steelers suck d***!" [other than our boy Mitch of course]

McD is growing up!

That was the game where Jimbo scored a TD on the games last play to win it. He said in an interview later that he was saying to himself "boy, I'd better make it" while he was running to the endzone. Both teams left the field thinking the game was over, but the officials made both return so the Bills could kick the meaningless extra point. NBC didn't even show the try since they too thought the game was over and the TV screen read "Buffalo 26, Miami 24 Final", and went to a commercial break, lol. [The NFL has since changed that rule.] EDIT: The famous Kelly play in the video above is at 19:48. Or here:

Yep. Perfect. This is what I found too: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf "Note: Ordinarily the out-of-bounds spot is the spot where the ball crossed a sideline. However, if a ball, while still within a boundary line, is declared out of bounds because of touching anything that is out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is on the yard line through the spot of the ball at the instant of such touching."

I think because possession has not been established yet. I agree. The goaline does not extend to infinity like it used to. http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/14_Rule11_Scoring.pdf "Section 2 Touchdown TOUCHDOWN PLAYS Article 1 Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play"

Yep, we could have had an easy TD at the end!

It's funny--in that last thread above, the Ravens fans are whining they lost the game because of bad officiating. That's a tactic bad teams use.

Today's Pro Football Hall of fame "Best. Football. Day. Ever." showing the Bills and Ravens featured Bills great Joe DeLamielleure. He predicted the Bills would win today and was spot on: Here he is playing cornhole at the Hall with the winner of their raffle:

Vegas favored the Bills by 3.5. We won by 3. Look like they pretty much knew what they were doing. I know hindsight is 20/20, but we were favored by 3.5 because we are the better team. Not to say that Baltimore is not good.

Oh, yes, I agree on that. But, for example, there is a local pets charity where I live. Something like 90% of the funds donated goes to administrative costs. Very little money actually reaches those who it is intended to help. When you give to charities like that, you're basically paying the staff's mortgages, lol.

Well, if it's for a good cause and you know the money is going towards the cause itself, not for "administrative" expenses, like the staff's salaries and more ads on TV so the staff can get raises or bonuses. But then let them give to every player's cause for every injury. Heck, Bob Kraft had one of this Super Bowl rings stolen by Putin, so let's buy him a new one. And pay for any fine Tom Brady gets. Yeah, I'm being facetious, but there is a line.

This is a good point. But my main problem is are we going to donate to a player's cause every time such and such a player gets a concussion or seriously injured and is carted off in an ambulance? That would be a lot of players over the course of a season. Sure, Tua is more high profile, but is his injury more severe than the others who get concussed or seriously injured? To me, people are donating because of his fame, not because of the injury. What about Joe Schmoe?

Yes!!! The Bills have won a one-score game, and this is the first time Josh has been the QB when the Bills beat Baltimore in the regular season.

I mentioned this in another thread somewhat jokingly, but I want any play Tua was involved in after the injury in the Buffalo game to be not counted, which means the Bills would have won the game 19-14, and now be 3-0 now, and Miami would be 2-2. I obviously know that will never happen, but it just irks me. The Bills were clearly the better team, and Tua never should have gone back in the game. Bridgewater wouldn't have beaten us.

He has six rings, right? Unless I am missing something.

We will not lose tomorrow. Not going to happen. Have some confidence!

The media never learns. Most of the pundits also predicted the Rams over the Bills, such as: How'd that turn out?

Here's your tweet above: Just click on the date of the tweet below the actual tweet to get the embedded link to post here.