Miyagi-Do Karate Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 What about the 'no catch' ruling on Holmes near the goal line? I counted 3 steps after he had control of the ball. If that was ruled correctly...it's a bad rule. Consider too that the only reason that the ball came loose was that Holmes extended it, trying to dive for a TD. He could have just tucked it away and been down at the one. I wonder if the correct interpretation of the rule is or should be that Holmes was basically making "two football moves"-- he caught the ball, got two feet and a hand down (move #1), then he lunged forward for the TD (move #2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE GASH STATION Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Yeah, poor Conway...he never stood a chance. He and Kevin Curtis can commiserate over it. Conway looked really upset after the non-call. I read this and flipped to a different window...then in the back of my head I said...who the heck is Conway ? hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought that as well. I just did get not how after three feet down he had to hold onto the ball after hitting the ground. Must be a rule I missed somewhere This is the new rule. If you catch the ball and fall on the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball even if you're down. I think it's dumb, but that's the way they call it now. As far as the kickoff, I think the Lards got stiffed on that one. I don't think the guy was out of bounds. I mostly was watching the ball on that one. But, it didn't go out of bounds. If I see it again I'll check. But to me it looked like Lard ball at about the 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 you would think the NFL would finally wake up and realize they need full time refs instead of these old lawyers and accountants that simply cant keep up with the game anymore I hear this alot, but really, what makes you think they would be any better? Officiating will never be 100%. They have full time refs in the NBA and MLB. I see bad calls in those sports all the time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 well lets bring a third blown call, running into the punter. Mitch Berger wasn't even touched, slipped on his own. What slip, he didn't slip, he freaking fell on purpose trying to win an academy award or something. It was even a terrible acting job and he still got the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 This is the new rule. If you catch the ball and fall on the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball even if you're down. I think it's dumb, but that's the way they call it now. As far as the kickoff, I think the Lards got stiffed on that one. I don't think the guy was out of bounds. I mostly was watching the ball on that one. But, it didn't go out of bounds. If I see it again I'll check. But to me it looked like Lard ball at about the 20. Anyone have a link to this rule? Taking it to its absurd maximum if a receiver catches the ball on their 1 and runs downfield and falls at the opponents 1 dropping the ball it would be an incomplete pass. The guy took 3 steps fercryinoutloud, and as JR said...the only reason he fumbled was because he was extending the ball to the goal. I'll stand by my statement that if the ref interpreted the rule correctly it is a 'stupid' rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Anyone have a link to this rule? Taking it to its absurd maximum if a receiver catches the ball on their 1 and runs downfield and falls at the opponents 1 dropping the ball it would be an incomplete pass. The guy took 3 steps fercryinoutloud, and as JR said...the only reason he fumbled was because he was extending the ball to the goal. I'll stand by my statement that if the ref interpreted the rule correctly it is a 'stupid' rule. Don't have google? I'm sure the NFL rule book is online somewhere. I agree that it's a stupid rule too. Anyone remember Butch Johnson's TD catch in SB XII which is the most famous highlight from that game? Wouldn't be a TD in SB XLIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts