Collingsworth should be fired

[Pure Steel]

Jesse James absolutely had possession of the football as he crossed the goal line. No one touched him is absolutely correct.

I'm not sure why you said "actually" before saying this because I never claimed anything to the contrary. Arguing for or against that rule was not my intention when I responded. Just saying that the idea that "if the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD", as @dann bunn said, is not 100% correct. Ertz had to become a runner first (which he did) before the goal line was even relevant.

Jesse James absolutely had possession of the football as he crossed the goal line. No one touched him is absolutely correct.

I'm not sure why you said "actually" before saying this because I never claimed anything to the contrary. Arguing for or against that rule was not my intention when I responded. Just saying that the idea that "if the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD", as @dann bunn said, is not 100% correct. Ertz had to become a runner first (which he did) before the goal line was even relevant.

Actually, I didn't mean it that way....

 

[Pure Steel]

Jimmy Two Times.....gotta get the papers....

 

[soxfan1468927]

Actually, I didn't mean it that way....

Okay. I don't know how you took my response. I'm just using the Jesse James scenario as an example as to how the two plays are very different. I don't know why it kept being brought up in comparison to the Ertz play.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what they do with the catch rule. If a player catches the ball as they are falling to the ground, and the ball pops loose once you hit the ground, is that still a catch as long as your knee or two feet touch first? If that's the case, you open a whole new can of worms in regards to turnovers.

 

[dann bunn]

Only if he's a runner, so that part is crucial. If he caught the ball going to the ground and the ball popped loose once he hit the ground, it's an incomplete pass even if he had control of the ball as he crossed the goal line. It's why the Jesse James TD was overturned.

Oh, wow, didn't know that. I'm still in the old days when the ground couldn't cause a fumble. They have changed the rules so much, to me, they have F#&kD the game up. It is not fun to watch anymore, too many reviews, BULLSHIT to me.

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

Collingsworth is terrible. Not as bad as theismann but he isnt far behind. Rumor has it he was recently knocked out by Bradys balls

 

[dann bunn]

Oh, wow, didn't know that. I'm still in the old days when the ground couldn't cause a fumble. They have changed the rules so much, to me, they have F#&kD the game up. It is not fun to watch anymore, too many reviews, BULLSHIT to me.

It is just not real football. hell, all they need to do is take away the damn helmets, these are the weapons. Look at Rugby, they don't have near the problems of the NFL. Most football players are taught to tackle and run leading with their head. Now the get penalized and ejected, even when the guy getting tackled lowers his head and causes the contact. As I said get rid of the helmets.

 

[dann bunn]

Only if he's a runner, so that part is crucial. If he caught the ball going to the ground and the ball popped loose once he hit the ground, it's an incomplete pass even if he had control of the ball as he crossed the goal line. It's why the Jesse James TD was overturned.

So, it would suit me as it was years ago, doesn't make any difference if you are a runner or receiver, it's a football player. He catches the ball. If it is a catch, it is a catch. He can drop it, say if he is out of bounds, in the end zone pass the plane, whatever, the ground cannot cause a fumble. Remember that? That was a lot better, than all this BS

 

[sonnyblack65]

Collingsworth is terrible. Not as bad as theismann but he isnt far behind. Rumor has it he was recently knocked out by Bradys balls

I wouldn't know, been boycotting the NFL. Heard that Goodell will make 39 mill less because of my abstinence

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I wouldn't know, been boycotting the NFL. Heard that Goodell will make 39 mill less because of my abstinence

How's Goodell going to be able to feed his kids on a 25 mil salary? Help the man out and stop boycotting damn it!

 

[sonnyblack65]

How's Goodell going to be able to feed his kids on a 25 mil salary? Help the man out and stop boycotting damn it!

Jersey don't know the last time anybody told you but your a good man!!

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Jersey don't know the last time anybody tell you but your a good man!!

Back at ya buddy

Not many people say that since most think Jersey people are a bunch of assholes.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Back at ya buddy

Not many people say that since most think Jersey people are a bunch of assholes.

Your good people and nobody will talk shit about u

 

[soxfan1468927]

Oh, wow, didn't know that. I'm still in the old days when the ground couldn't cause a fumble. They have changed the rules so much, to me, they have F#&kD the game up. It is not fun to watch anymore, too many reviews, BULLSHIT to me.

The "ground can't cause a fumble" rule was never a rule. The ground can't cause a fumble if a player is tackled because then he would be down. The ground CAN cause a fumble if a player goes to the ground untouched because he isn't down at that point. That's never changed.

 

[soxfan1468927]

So, it would suit me as it was years ago, doesn't make any difference if you are a runner or receiver, it's a football player. He catches the ball. If it is a catch, it is a catch. He can drop it, say if he is out of bounds, in the end zone pass the plane, whatever, the ground cannot cause a fumble. Remember that? That was a lot better, than all this BS

The "ground causing a fumble" thing is irrelevant here and I explained it in the previous post.

We aren't talking about a fumble, we are talking about a pass being complete or incomplete.

 

[shopson67]

He was pretty awful in the Playoffs, but he has been usually decent overall.
He was way out of character the last few weeks. It was puzzling.

I am not sure whether he had money on the Pats or what....
But Gisele Bundchen would have been a more neutral announcer.

The first call was debatable. He had an argument of sorts, (60/40) but certainly not enough to go on a ranting raving diatribe about it. IT was not the worst call in history. He made it seem like it was the single biggest referee mistake in Superbowl history.

The second call was 100% correct by the refs.

While that 2nd call was correct IMO, that's not to say a different set of refs in a different game don't screw up that call.