slipkid

The trouble is that Marcel's smack down of Ivory at the Jets two yard line was priceless.

A pretty big one.

Fred Jackson represents . . . always. He makes me proud to be a fan.

I always have a hard time listening to the FOX crews because I am fixated on how much I hate that robot.

Thank you for this.

. . . and on the Habersham County, Georgia Development Authority. http://www.habershamga.com/files/Meeting408_MINUTES%2005192014.pdf (page 5)

Robey was rubbed out and burnt on San Diego's first drive for 50+ yards. I didn't see much of him after that.

RU Kidding me?!

RIP. He had a great couple years. If memory serves, he had a game-winner at the Ralph during Tennessee's fondly-recalled Vince Young era.

I think you took that post for granite.

Whoa there! I'm still deciding whether or not to be a Clippers fan.

Good call: an oft overlooked game that began a winning streak for a playoff spot. I seem to recall Hooks making a spectacular diving catch to get the Bills in position for that Hail Mary.

I'll see your Al Cowlings with. Perry Tuttle.

I said CJ's run put the ball inside the 35, and I was wrong. I was angry about the first and second down calls after that run and let my anger blind me. My bad.

I'll need to check the depth chart, but I hope Smith is the fourth string QB.

If your running back rips off 15+ yards to get inside the 35 and call three passes, you punt and hope no one notices.

The Metrodome?

Nix thought we had New Orleans on the road this Sunday.

I couldn't agree more. Fitz can't throw deep with any consistency and the entire NFL knows it; our "playoff-quality" defense is not very good when it needs to be. Teams win and lose games like today, not players.

You forgot the 90-yard opening drive, but maybe you were only talking about the drives after the 20-7 lead.

I'll add that he was probably the hairiest Buffalo Bills player in history.

Nope. Not exactly. I'm saying that Fitz must have had control of the ball when he stopped drawing his arm backward. Otherwise, the ball would have gone backward. As I read the rule, once control is established at the end of the windup, "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass." Although the rule doesn't explicitly say so, I suspect that the movement should be forward. Nope. I am claiming it was a pass once he displayed control at the end of his windup. There's the rub! I may be wrong and don't want to misrepresent you, but your point seems to be that he lost control during his windup. I am saying that it didn't look like that to me. Ultimately, regardless of what we think we saw, he had to have control of the ball at the end of the windup in order for the ball to have ended up going forward. If he did not have control at the end of his windup, the ball would have at least rolled off his fingertips . . . backward. The ball went forward which means he had to have stopped the backward movement of the ball. That's where I am claiming "Physics!" in my pseudo-intelligent manner. I didn't mean that the hand doesn't need to be moving forward. I meant that he does not have to have control of the ball as the hand moves forward. Somewhat unrelated, I think we've both seen some pretty ugly balls slip out of Fitz's hands. He's susceptible to calls like this. As MDH/Hal pointed out, though, I fear that this is quickly becoming an unhealthy obsession. especially with Pats* coming to town in a couple days. I'll save everyone my rants now.

The ball went forward. That, and the laws of physics. In order to stop the backward motion of the ball as he drew his arm back, he must have had control of the ball until at least that point. Physics! You stated in an earlier post that "Until the arm starts moving forward with control of the ball, it's not a forward pass." According to the rule book, you are simply incorrect: "When a player is in control of the ball and attempting to pass it forward, any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass." His hand does not have to be moving forward with the ball. Once he establishes control, as he did by stopping the backward movement of the ball, "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass," which would include his fingertips. The "empty hand" rule only applies when there is contact with an opponent. I guess you and the replay officials saw Fitz flailing his arms at the ball and accidentally knocking it forward. That's not what I saw. Thanks for the link, by the way; the link I posted was getting old.

Nope. No "cherry-picking" on my part. Check my previous post. This reference to "control" (the only reference to "control" in the section discussing the forward pass) is clearly in the context of a.) contact by an opposing player, b.) the tuck rule, or c.) recocking the arm. None of those conditions are applicable to the call at hand. Ultimately, I guess this is where you and I won't ever come to agree on this play. He sure looked like he was passing to me.

Well, the post may be articulate and awfully confident, but it's incorrect. The argument relies entirely too much on some subjective notion of "control" that it assumes is the overriding factor in determing the differerence between a forward pass and a fumble. The NFL rule book does not rely on "control" that much. In fact, the only reference to the passer being "in control" is in the context of a.) contact by an opposing player, b.) the tuck rule and c.) recocking the arm. None of those factors was present during the play in question. Thus, that play should be determined by the definition of a forward pass--"the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent's goal line than at the point at which it leaves the passer's hand(s)." Even if one wants to rely on some vague notion of control, they must simultaneously acknowledge that "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass." So, I guess by discussion board standards it was a solid post in that it was cocky and a little snarky. In terms of accuracy and understanding the NFL rules, though, it wasn't so great.