Genuinely wondering about the fairness of the refs today.

[iamhubby1]

3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

If they lose the ball when they hit the ground they had to have “made a football move” in the end zone with possession. Jump, catch, hit the ground has required not losing the ball for over a decade. 

 

If you make a catch, go to the ground, and lose the ball. That is an incomplete pass.

 

If you catch a ball, make any sort of Football Move. That is a catch.

 

If you are on the sideline, get 2 feet down, but drop the ball when you hit the ground. That is an incomplete pass.

[1of10Charnatives]

11 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

If you make a "Football Move" turn to run, take a step, anything really. It is considered a catch.

 

In the End Zone. If you catch a ball, and take a step or two. Then go out of bounds. You are allowed to drop the ball. You had possession, and control. That is all you need in the EZ. You made a football move. 

 

DJ got 2 feet down, but did not control the ball through contact with the ground. Hence, incomplete. He made no football move.

I understand where you are coming from but I could quite easily argue that DJ had possession and control when he caught it while going out of bounds and any ruling by the refs to the contrary is arbitrary subjectivity. Who is to say he didn't make a "football move" while going out of bounds since in your own words the definition includes "anything really" It's a garbage rule with vague standards and arbitrary and imo biased enforcement. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that the definition of a "football move" includes anything, and then claim he didn't make one during the entire course of catching that ball.

I'm not so much taking issue with you, as with the absurdity of the rule itself. 

And if you think NFL refs are never biased, please. Any objective study of the way star elite QB's are officiated vs all others has to bend over backwards not to see the glaring discrepancies in officiating for things like roughing the passer. If there is bias there, it's hard to argue there isn't or can't be bias elsewhere.

Edited October 31, 2021 by 1of10Charnatives

[iamhubby1]

2 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I understand where you are coming from but I could quite easily argue that DJ had possession and control when he caught it while going out of bounds and any ruling by the refs to the contrary is arbitrary subjectivity. Who is to say he didn't make a "football move" while going out of bounds since in your own words the definition includes "anything really" It's a garbage rule with vague standards and arbitrary and imo biased enforcement. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that the definition of a "football move" includes anything, and then claim he didn't make one during the entire course of catching that ball.

I'm not so much taking issue with you, as with the absurdity of the rule itself. 

And if you think NFL refs are never biased, please. Any objective study of the way star elite QB's are officiated vs all others has to bend over backwards not to see the glaring discrepancies in officiating for things like roughing the passer. If there is bias there, it's hard to argue there isn't or can't be bias elsewhere.

 

I'll give you  that the NFL is protecting QBs hard. But that other stuff is just fan speak. Every fan base thinks the refs hate them.

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, iamhubby1 said:

 

I'll give you  that the NFL is protecting QBs hard. But that other stuff is just fan speak. Every fan base thinks the refs hate them.

Yes but fan bases of small media markets not named Green Bay are right. And you're missing or misinterpreting my point about QB officiating: Yes the NFL is protecting SOME QB's hard. Any argument that the NFL was protecting Cam Newton hard is absurd on it's face. They blatantly allowed him to be headhunted and Ed Hochuli (fug you Ed) told him he wasn't old enough to get that call. The discrepancy between the lattitude defenders are given when going after Newton vs say Brady or Rogers was and is beyond absurd.

If the NFL will allow an obvious and blatant level of discrepancy between the way some QB's are officiated vs others, the notion their crews are biased in other areas cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.

[iamhubby1]

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Yes but fan bases of small media markets not named Green Bay are right. And you're missing or misinterpreting my point about QB officiating: Yes the NFL is protecting SOME QB's hard. Any argument that the NFL was protecting Cam Newton hard is absurd on it's face. They blatantly allowed him to be headhunted and Ed Hochuli (fug you Ed) told him he wasn't old enough to get that call. The discrepancy between the lattitude defenders are given when going after Newton vs say Brady or Rogers was and is beyond absurd.

If the NFL will allow an obvious and blatant level of discrepancy between the way some QB's are officiated vs others, the notion their crews are biased in other areas cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.

 

I feel like you've backed me into a corner here. Yes Cam got beat up. So no, refs don't protect everyone the same way. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

I feel like you've backed me into a corner here. Yes Cam got beat up. So no, refs don't protect everyone the same way. 

That's my point. The discrepancy between Cam and Brady/Rogers etc. is so obvious, it undermines the notion the refs are seeking to be fair, since it's obvious that in at least some cases they are not. If they are not seeking to be fair in every case, they should not be extended the benefit of the doubt automatically in other cases. 

Any rule involving the term "football move" when the term is poorly defined gives biased refs too much cover and allows the league to point and shrug and say the officials are just enforcing the rules.  The TD rule that applies when a player crosses the plane of the endzone is the most simple and objective, and should apply in all cases. A player leaving the endzone who catches the ball inbounds and has control of it for even an instant before moving out of bounds should be considered to have scored a touchdown. Period. Anything else is unnecessary and highly suspect mumbo jumbo.

[iamhubby1]

9 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

That's my point. The discrepancy between Cam and Brady/Rogers etc. is so obvious, it undermines the notion the refs are seeking to be fair, since it's obvious that in at least some cases they are not. If they are not seeking to be fair in every case, they should not be extended the benefit of the doubt automatically in other cases. 

Any rule involving the term "football move" when the term is poorly defined gives biased refs too much cover and allows the league to point and shrug and say the officials are just enforcing the rules.  The TD rule that applies when a player crosses the plane of the endzone is the most simple and objective, and should apply in all cases. A player leaving the endzone who catches the ball inbounds and has control of it for even an instant before moving out of bounds should be considered to have scored a touchdown. Period. Anything else is unnecessary and highly suspect mumbo jumbo.

 

It's like "What is a catch". Who knows. Instant replay is the devil.

[1of10Charnatives]

5 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

It's like "What is a catch". Who knows. Jerome Boger is the devil.

FIFY

I just hate Boger in particular and want him to die.

Alone.

Screaming.

As something cooks and eats him at the same time.

In the rain.

Edited October 31, 2021 by 1of10Charnatives

[ThPantherFan]

5 hours ago, hepcat said:

A Falcons player apparently threw a punch and no penalty was called. I saw Yetur Gross-Matos having his jersey pulled and dragged to the ground on a run play, no holding call.

Meanwhile the Panthers are having ticky-tack holding and pass interference called on them. 

Very questionable yet again. 

I noticed during the Saints and Bucs game the refs favored bucs.  It's not just the Panthers they are bias against.  Something should be done.

[JawnyBlaze]

2 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I understand where you are coming from but I could quite easily argue that DJ had possession and control when he caught it while going out of bounds and any ruling by the refs to the contrary is arbitrary subjectivity. Who is to say he didn't make a "football move" while going out of bounds since in your own words the definition includes "anything really" It's a garbage rule with vague standards and arbitrary and imo biased enforcement. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that the definition of a "football move" includes anything, and then claim he didn't make one during the entire course of catching that ball.

I'm not so much taking issue with you, as with the absurdity of the rule itself. 

And if you think NFL refs are never biased, please. Any objective study of the way star elite QB's are officiated vs all others has to bend over backwards not to see the glaring discrepancies in officiating for things like roughing the passer. If there is bias there, it's hard to argue there isn't or can't be bias elsewhere.

Football move has to be made while in possession, so he can’t make one while catching the ball. General rule, if they never catch their balance after going airborne to catch the ball, then possession has to be maintained through the ground. 

[bigdavis]

1 hour ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Football move has to be made while in possession, so he can’t make one while catching the ball. General rule, if they never catch their balance after going airborne to catch the ball, then possession has to be maintained through the ground. 

I may be late to this party, but here's my take: this notion of a "football move"  may be the sticking point here.  In the field of play, it's generally considered such when a receiver takes 2 steps after securing possession of a catch.  In the EZ, it's getting both feet (2 steps, by definition) down in the EZ, while maintaining possession of the catch.

Hence, in this instance (absolutely no bobble or loss of control of the catch,until both feet were planted, and he'd gone out of bounds.)

Bad call; worse review.  Catch.  TD.

The references earlier of "breaking the plane" of the EZ line, then fumbling a split second later, is irrelevant.  This rule applies to rushing TDs, not receiving TDs.

 

A wins a win, but hell, they made it tough, with all the subjective and inconsistent PF and Holding calls.

 

 

[Brooklyn 3.0]

8 hours ago, hepcat said:

A Falcons player apparently threw a punch and no penalty was called. I saw Yetur Gross-Matos having his jersey pulled and dragged to the ground on a run play, no holding call.

Meanwhile the Panthers are having ticky-tack holding and pass interference called on them. 

Very questionable yet again. 

Hi. I would like to edit your post. I will change the word FALCONS to all other teams' names. I will replace YGM's name with many, many, many, many other players' names. I will replace PANTHERS with all other team's names. I will then post the edit on 31 other fan forums.

There is no sabotage of the Panthers, there is no plot against the Panthers, of ANY team that the NFL might want to beat a middle of the road crap unit like the Panthers ... it sure as hell isn't the Falcons, and the refs and NFL brass don't have it out for the city of Charlotte.

[GoobyPls]

That Moore play was 100% a TD, after the 2018 rule change getting two feet inside is considered a football move. You do not need to have possession all the way through in the endzone.

[OneBadCat]

13 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Hi. I would like to edit your post. I will change the word FALCONS to all other teams' names. I will replace YGM's name with many, many, many, many other players' names. I will replace PANTHERS with all other team's names. I will then post the edit on 31 other fan forums.

There is no sabotage of the Panthers, there is no plot against the Panthers, of ANY team that the NFL might want to beat a middle of the road crap unit like the Panthers ... it sure as hell isn't the Falcons, and the refs and NFL brass don't have it out for the city of Charlotte.

SB 50 disagrees with you