Billz4ever

Are you asking for Moss back too? 😁

There it is again. I would love to see the injury data from 20 years ago that shows there's any truth to this whatsoever. I don't ever recall a Kelly-led Bills team ever being as injured as this team has been this year. And I never said hits like Hamlin's should be legal. I said hits that are not targeting the head should be legal if they are to separate the receiver from the ball. Expecting DBs to simply allow receivers to catch the ball is ridiculous, especially considering every rule already in effect right now is designed to give the advantage to the receivers because the league likes scoring. Might as well make DBs play with one arm tied behind their back if the ball is literally the only thing they can play in the secondary.

Make the brain the premise of your post even though I've repeatedly said targeting the head should be a no-no and is. Hitting a receiver to separate them from the ball should be perfectly fine unless you're hitting them in the head. And FYI, he most certainly did say that. I don't know what post you were reading, but that certainly does imply exactly that. That clearly says that the NFL has grown in popularity due to its restrictions on hitting, which keeps players "healthy". If you're going to come at me, at least come at me correct.

Claiming the NFL has grown by restricting hitting is a stretch. Even before the changes to hitting, most injuries that caused a lot of time missed weren't the result of big hits on the field. They were things like ACL tears just like they are today. Correlation does not imply causation.

Football is a collision sport. You should expect collisions and as long as long as they aren't targeting the head, DBs should be allowed to try and separate the receiver from the ball.

LMAO, possibly.

He tucked the ball away, which per the rule, is a football move.

So why isn't that verbiage part of what defines a catch? Seems pretty ambiguous when it's spelled out in 3 parts what defines a completed catch and then somewhere else it adds "oh, and this too".

I'm not seeing that in what defines a catch. If he's already satisfied the requirements for a catch (below👇) you're saying there's more requirements that aren't part of the rule that defines a catch? “a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and c. 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.”

But that's not what defines a catch in the NFL. Which of these did he not satisfy? “a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and c. 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.”

Rules have gotten out of hand. I can understand helmet to helmet contact being a no-no, but defenders are taught to separate the receiver from the ball. Hall of Fame DBs like Ronnie Lott and Steve Atwater would never have survived in today's NFL.

This is also the rule (no matter how dumb the rule is) in college and high school ball as well. The scenario given below is using NCAA rules (only needing 1 foot in), but this same scenario that happened with Poyer. ------------------- https://www.referee.com/hesitation-may-not-lead-aggravation/ The ground can cause an incomplete pass. Catching a ball involves more than simply gaining control of it. It means gaining possession of the ball in flight and first coming to the ground inbounds (NFHS 2-4-1; NCAA 2-2-7). If an airborne player receives the ball and lands so his first contact is inbounds, he has caught the ball. Barring contact by an opponent, if the first contact is out of bounds, there is no catch and the pass is incomplete. If a player controls the ball while airborne, but loses possession when he lands, there is no catch. Thus, the ground can cause an incomplete pass. One fairly common scenario is a player who gains control of a ball in flight while he is in mid-air. He then comes to the ground with a foot just inside the sideline and falls to the ground out of bounds. When the player contacts the ground, the ball pops out from his hands. That may occur either with or without the ball contacting the ground. --------------------- The difference here is the "performs any act common to the game" (part c in the NFL rules). If it says tucking the ball constitutes a football move, then if it comes lose after contact with the ground, it shouldn't matter at that point since the elements of a completed catch were already fulfilled. If you then say the ball coming loose still does matter even after a,b, and c were satisfied as per what defines a catch, then you're saying a,b, and c are not what defines a catch, which in that case, means they need to update the rule book. “a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and c. 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.”

Now I guess there's some debate whether getting a toe tap down constitutes an additional step, but even if we say it doesn't, he still did tuck it away, which is also considered a football move.

OK, let's say it doesn't. Tucking the ball away does and he did that too.

It literally says it in the rule book. Poyer tucked it away AND got a 3rd foot in bounds. NFL rule book states a player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)”

He not only tucked it, but had a THIRD foot down in bounds, both of which satisfy the requirement of a football move.

I couldn't believe the Diggs kick didn't get a flag. Dude may end up with a fine though regardless.

Poyer got 3 feet down in bounds with possession. As soon as the 3rd foot touches, that fulfills the 3rd part of the rule regarding a football move. player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)”

If getting an additional foot down fulfills the football move part of the equation, they most certainly got it wrong. NFL rule book states a player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)” But I do agree with you they need to update the rule with wording about as long as the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Meyers never made a football move. Poyer's 3rd step down is considered exactly that.

Then the refs got it wrong and don't understand the rule considering once he got the 3rd foot down with possession, it's a completed catch. The 3rd foot down satisfies the football move part of the rule.

If he had done that same exact thing in bounds, it would've been a catch. He still caught the ball in-bounds, got two feet down (actually 3, and by the rule, that's a catch with the 3rd foot) without it ever touching the ground. It's on McD for not challenging though when Poyer was right in front of him.

The fact that it would be considered a catch in-bounds, but somehow it's not because it's out of bounds shows how ridiculous the rule is. As long as the ball didn't touch the ground, it should be treated like any other catch IMO.

He never made an effort even when he was close to him. Let's not make excuses for a lack of hustle.

After watching Rhodes mildly jog on the Jones TD, I was fuming. Little to no effort from him on that play.