Want to hear a joke of a rule?

[Shallow]

They are taking hitting the QB wayyyy to seriously this year. I know Vince Wilfork has a reputation but that hit on the QB during the Bills game was NOT roughing the passer.

It was according to thew new Brady rules. Since Brady got hurst because he was sacked low you are not allowed to motion low on a QB for a sack. You have to stay high and take him down that way. I wonder what Johny U's numbers would have been like if he got to play under those rules.


And that Raider TD called back at the end of the half was not a catch. The ball hit the ground. Unless we're talking about another play.

[Chamillitary Click]

They are taking hitting the QB wayyyy to seriously this year. I know Vince Wilfork has a reputation but that hit on the QB during the Bills game was NOT roughing the passer.

every rule is taken way too seriously lol.

too many holding calls, esspecially ones that are irrelevant to the play; pass interference is a hit or miss & of course this bullshit over celebration rule; did you see what they hit the Eagles up for? that was NOTHING.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

They are taking hitting the QB wayyyy to seriously this year. I know Vince Wilfork has a reputation but that hit on the QB during the Bills game was NOT roughing the passer.

It was according to thew new Brady rules. Since Brady got hurst because he was sacked low you are not allowed to motion low on a QB for a sack. You have to stay high and take him down that way. I wonder what Johny U's numbers would have been like if he got to play under those rules.


And that Raider TD called back at the end of the half was not a catch. The ball hit the ground. Unless we're talking about another play.

There was a lot of controversy over that catch for a reason.  The controversy wasnt coming from Raider supporters, it was coming from everywhere.  The fact that it was overturned made it even more controversial. Had it been called an incomplete pass on the field and the booth had to prove, without a shadow of a doubt that the call on the field was wrong, thats one thing. But it was called a TD on the field, which means in the booth they had to see evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasnt a TD.  There is a reason since then youve heard so many analysts etc making joking comments such as "I dont know what a touchdown is anymore". Because they think its a joke that a player catches the ball in the end zone, gets both feet down, his knee down, his thigh down, and damn near lays on the ground before letting go of the ball is not called a TD.  Again, even die hard Charger fans I know have been telling me ever since how that call was bullshit and that if it happens to the Patriots...or maybe the Steelers, whatever the rule is will change.

[Shallow]

Just look at the video




At 1:45


You'll see that the ball clearly comes out. The rule states that you have to maintain control the whole way and basically have to get up with the ball when it comes to TD catches or when falling out of bounds. He didn't do that. If this was in the field of play it would have been called a catch and stayed that way most likely.

The refs used that same logic to reverse the Palomalu INT agasins tthe Colts a few years back. The league later came in and said they were wrong. I guess that rule doesn't apply to INTs. Only TDs.

I think the rule sucks. If you go down with the ball and lose it while you are coming up it should be a fumble, not an incomplete, but the rule is the rule and in this case it was called right.

As for it being the Pats or Steelers, inside 2 minutes they wouldn't even review it, like the Warner fumble last year. They'd just call it a TD and leave it at that.

[Chamillitary Click]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

This is how most people have interpreted the rule for years. The "tuck rule" was a rule as well, but still thought to be ridiculous by most...and most felt that the Raiders got screwed on that call as well.  Again, one last time, there is a reason why so many people have talked about the non TD Louis Murphy call being bullshit..and not just Raider fans.  It all comes with the territory of being a Raider fan so it is what it is. Like I said before, if it happens to the Pats or another franchise that the NFL is in love with...we'll see a rule change. As long as only the Raiders lose a game due to it, itll be aiight...

[Chamillitary Click]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

This is how most people have interpreted the rule for years. The "tuck rule" was a rule as well, but still thought to be ridiculous by most...and most felt that the Raiders got screwed on that call as well.  Again, one last time, there is a reason why so many people have talked about the non TD Louis Murphy call being bullshit..and not just Raider fans.  It all comes with the territory of being a Raider fan so it is what it is. Like I said before, if it happens to the Pats or another franchise that the NFL is in love with...we'll see a rule change. As long as only the Raiders lose a game due to it, itll be aiight...

it's like that in every sport; they all have teams that are above the league, my Yankees being one of them.

it's a part of sports.

["THE" MoSav]

another related rule states: you cannot do a celebration with the ball as a prop.

You can if you're the Steelers in the Superbowl and you just made a comeback. You can also illegal block for your QB if you're a Steeler.

Likewise, if youre a Raider...particularly a Raider rookie receiver, youre not allowed to score a touchdown even if youre practically laying in the end zone with the ball...

waa waa waaa

HA.  You know its real.  Even down here in SD I havent heard one Charger fan say that the call wasnt bullshit.  On ESPN radio they even made the comment that you wont see that called again, especially to have the play OVERTURNED LOL.  If it happens to the Patriots, we'll see a rule change next year.  But hey, youre a niner fan...youre the one team that can make us feel good about our QB situation 

YEAH OUR QB IS ONLY 8-3 AS A STARTER AND DOESNT THROW INTS....

You can throw the record out. Roethlisberger has a better win percentage then Montana, doesnt make him better at QB.

Last year Hill and Russell both threw 13 TDs, 8 Ints.

LOL, yeah but hill started 8 games...nice stat 

[you gon always be my latin queen bitch]

thats why i hate the nfl....fuck are these rules?
muffuccaz complain why arent people happy in this world?
let em be happy and celebrate...what they takin away from you or your family?
NOTHIN

[Shallow]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

What opinion? If the Rule book says you have to come up with the ball too then that is the rule. His feet were down, his elbow was down, but the ground caused him to lose control, which to the refs meant he never had complete control because he never had the ball long enought to establish it. If he caught it, ran 5 steps in the endzone then was pushed down and dropped it, that would have been a TD.

Let me just say that I hate SD and anything that contributes to them losing is a good thing, but the refs called it right.

[Chamillitary Click]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

What opinion? If the Rule book says you have to come up with the ball too then that is the rule. His feet were down, his elbow was down, but the ground caused him to lose control, which to the refs meant he never had complete control because he never had the ball long enought to establish it. If he caught it, ran 5 steps in the endzone then was pushed down and dropped it, that would have been a TD.

Let me just say that I hate SD and anything that contributes to them losing is a good thing, but the refs called it right.

he did come up with the ball lol.

he had possesion long enough, where if it were a catch at like the 30 yard line i would have said he "fumbled" it for a second.

it should have been a touchdown, but i don't really care lol.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

What opinion? If the Rule book says you have to come up with the ball too then that is the rule. His feet were down, his elbow was down, but the ground caused him to lose control, which to the refs meant he never had complete control because he never had the ball long enought to establish it. If he caught it, ran 5 steps in the endzone then was pushed down and dropped it, that would have been a TD.

Let me just say that I hate SD and anything that contributes to them losing is a good thing, but the refs called it right.

he did come up with the ball lol.

he had possesion long enough, where if it were a catch at like the 30 yard line i would have said he "fumbled" it for a second.

it should have been a touchdown, but i don't really care lol.

theres two ways to look at this, the literal way or the realistic way.

If you live on a certain street...and you watch people all day long jaywalk across the street, never getting stopped by the police. You know its against the RULES, but it still happens day in and day out. Even in front of the police, and they never give anybody a ticket, even though its against the RULES.  This goes on for so long that people damn near forget that it is even against the rules. Then one day, you jaywalk...and the minute you do, the same police that allowed everyone else to jaywalk...gives you a ticket.  Should you feel as if..."hey, its the rule...I broke it." or should you feel like you got screwed over?  This is an analogy. lol

[Chamillitary Click]

^na, the N-Zone is different in my mind.

look at it, he goes up, catches the ball in the air, comes down on his two feet with possesion = TOUCHDOWN, play over.

anything after the initial catch doesn't matter, for me.

What opinion? If the Rule book says you have to come up with the ball too then that is the rule. His feet were down, his elbow was down, but the ground caused him to lose control, which to the refs meant he never had complete control because he never had the ball long enought to establish it. If he caught it, ran 5 steps in the endzone then was pushed down and dropped it, that would have been a TD.

Let me just say that I hate SD and anything that contributes to them losing is a good thing, but the refs called it right.

he did come up with the ball lol.

he had possesion long enough, where if it were a catch at like the 30 yard line i would have said he "fumbled" it for a second.

it should have been a touchdown, but i don't really care lol.

theres two ways to look at this, the literal way or the realistic way.

If you live on a certain street...and you watch people all day long jaywalk across the street, never getting stopped by the police. You know its against the RULES, but it still happens day in and day out. Even in front of the police, and they never give anybody a ticket, even though its against the RULES.  This goes on for so long that people damn near forget that it is even against the rules. Then one day, you jaywalk...and the minute you do, the same police that allowed everyone else to jaywalk...gives you a ticket.  Should you feel as if..."hey, its the rule...I broke it." or should you feel like you got screwed over?  This is an analogy. lol

i dig it lol.

it's like that with Holding & Pass Interference too.

[you gon always be my latin queen bitch]

i mean at the end of it isnt the only concern DID HE HAVE FULL POSSESSION OF THE BALL LONG ENUFF?
its not like the refs havent messed up on calls
aite they reviewed it and they ruled it as is....but damn that looked like a td...a close call yeah but did they even spend enuff time lookin at the play/
this play needed extra time

[Shallow]

Looking at it again in real time. Both feet were down and he did hit the ground but he never established complete control of the ball. That catch would have and should been reversed even if he caught it at the 30 yard line. The ground cannot cause a fumble but it can cause an incompletion. He took no steps with the ball and could not maintain it upon falling to the ground. The slo-motion made it seem like he had it for a while and then lost it but in real time it's all one motion and he couldn't hold on to the ball. Incomplete pass. That's my call.