Stafford has Second Degree Separation.

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

Same rules as last year

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

I thought Morgan got a shin down. In the NFL, shin = knee and you only need one. I thought he got a shin down, but maybe his hand hit first.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

It's not his opinion. It's everyone without a rule book in their hand's opinion. According to the NFL rulebook Tom Brady didn't fumble that ball against Oakland. We all know he did, and was bailed out by some obscure loop hole.

He had complete control of the ball with 2 feet, his left hand, and his butt coming down. You can quote the rules all you want but it's a joke to think that was anything but a touchdown.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Sep 14, 2010 at 07:50:21 ]

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

It's not his opinion. It's everyone without a rule book in their hand's opinion. According to the NFL rulebook Tom Brady didn't fumble that ball against Oakland. We all know he did, and was bailed out by some obscure loop hole.

He had complete control of the ball with 2 feet, his left hand, and his butt coming down. You can quote the rules all you want but it's a joke to think that was anything but a touchdown.

Football is a GAME. It is defined by its rules.

You say it was a catch because he had 2 feet down. College football requires 1 foot down. Josh Morgan was a catch!!! Oh...NFL rules are different...too bad for us.

Rules change...players and teams should adapt. You only think it was a catch because you haven't grasped how the rule changes things you think you know.

His urge to celebrate prematurely cost his team a TD. Happens all the time. It is one reason smart scrappy players have value.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

It's not his opinion. It's everyone without a rule book in their hand's opinion. According to the NFL rulebook Tom Brady didn't fumble that ball against Oakland. We all know he did, and was bailed out by some obscure loop hole.

He had complete control of the ball with 2 feet, his left hand, and his butt coming down. You can quote the rules all you want but it's a joke to think that was anything but a touchdown.

Football is a GAME. It is defined by its rules.

You say it was a catch because he had 2 feet down. College football requires 1 foot down. Josh Morgan was a catch!!! Oh...NFL rules are different...too bad for us.

Rules change...players and teams should adapt. You only think it was a catch because you haven't grasped how the rule changes things you think you know.

His urge to celebrate prematurely cost his team a TD. Happens all the time. It is one reason smart scrappy players have value.

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel's reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew the refs were going to interpret it that way. That doesn't mean it was the right call.

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry. Now that the force rule is gone there is no scenario where someone can catch the ball on the sidelines have one foot out of bounds and people still think it's a catch.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Sep 14, 2010 at 12:20:09 ]

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

It's not his opinion. It's everyone without a rule book in their hand's opinion. According to the NFL rulebook Tom Brady didn't fumble that ball against Oakland. We all know he did, and was bailed out by some obscure loop hole.

He had complete control of the ball with 2 feet, his left hand, and his butt coming down. You can quote the rules all you want but it's a joke to think that was anything but a touchdown.

Football is a GAME. It is defined by its rules.

You say it was a catch because he had 2 feet down. College football requires 1 foot down. Josh Morgan was a catch!!! Oh...NFL rules are different...too bad for us.

Rules change...players and teams should adapt. You only think it was a catch because you haven't grasped how the rule changes things you think you know.

His urge to celebrate prematurely cost his team a TD. Happens all the time. It is one reason smart scrappy players have value.

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew that the refs were going to interpret it that way. They're dumb as sh*t.

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

Also: the rules did not change this season.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew that the refs were going to interpret it that way. They're dumb as sh*t.

The refs were smart to know the rule and ballsy to make that call (wonder if they decide differently in DET).

The rule may be stupid but the refs got it right. This seems to be the year of stupid rules...golf had a pretty controversial one not too long ago as well.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

I am using it to emphasize that a catch is defined by rules. Your belief that he caught is has to do with the fact he had it in his hands and got both feet in bounds. That is your personal ruleset for what defines a catch.

Someone familiar with college football would think differently. What makes you right when telling him Morgan did not catch the ball? The official NFL rules...the same rules that say Calvin Johnson did not catch the ball.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew that the refs were going to interpret it that way. They're dumb as sh*t.

The refs were smart to know the rule and ballsy to make that call (wonder if they decide differently in DET).

The rule may be stupid but the refs got it right. This seems to be the year of stupid rules...golf had a pretty controversial one not too long ago as well.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

I am using it to emphasize that a catch is defined by rules. Your belief that he caught is has to do with the fact he had it in his hands and got both feet in bounds. That is your personal ruleset for what defines a catch.

Someone familiar with college football would think differently. What makes you right when telling him Morgan did not catch the ball? The official NFL rules...the same rules that say Calvin Johnson did not catch the ball.

Would you stop with the one foot, two foot stuff. That's cut and dry. There's no scenario in the NFL were someone is going to say hey one foot clearly landed in bounds and the other out of bounds but that was a catch. There's no scenario in college football were someone's going to say hey he didn't get any feet in bounds but that was a catch.

Like I said before I understand what the rule book says, but it's clear that in this situation the rule book could not interpret what should have been a catch. It's happened before (see Bert Emanuel) and it will happen again. This isn't my opinion. It's everybody's opinion whose head isn't in the official rule keeper's @ss.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Sep 14, 2010 at 12:54:48 ]

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew that the refs were going to interpret it that way. They're dumb as sh*t.

The refs were smart to know the rule and ballsy to make that call (wonder if they decide differently in DET).

The rule may be stupid but the refs got it right. This seems to be the year of stupid rules...golf had a pretty controversial one not too long ago as well.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

I am using it to emphasize that a catch is defined by rules. Your belief that he caught is has to do with the fact he had it in his hands and got both feet in bounds. That is your personal ruleset for what defines a catch.

Someone familiar with college football would think differently. What makes you right when telling him Morgan did not catch the ball? The official NFL rules...the same rules that say Calvin Johnson did not catch the ball.

Would you stop with the one foot, two foot stuff. That's cut and dry. There's no scenario in the NFL were someone is going to say hey one foot clearly landed in bounds and the other out of bounds but that was a catch. There's no scenario in college football were someone's going to say hey he didn't get any feet in bounds but that was a catch.

Like I said before I understand what the rule book says, but it's clear that in this situation the rule book could not interpret what should have been a catch. It's happened before (see Bert Emanuel) and it will happen again. This isn't my opinion. It's everybody's opinion whose head isn't in the official rule keeper's @ss.

You have no clue what I am trying to communicate to you. There is no 100% accepted definition of a catch. It has to be defined by rules.

In the CHI/DET game everybody did their job correctly (except for CJ).

You disagree with the rule and think it should be changed so it would have been a catch.

Maybe the NFL will change that rule but it is not retroactive. Any change will happen after the fact (see Peyton Manning complaining about ref location and ball spotting).

The fact remains, based on the rules it was NOT a catch. Deal with it.

This belligerent act doesn't solve anything.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew that the refs were going to interpret it that way. They're dumb as sh*t.

The refs were smart to know the rule and ballsy to make that call (wonder if they decide differently in DET).

The rule may be stupid but the refs got it right. This seems to be the year of stupid rules...golf had a pretty controversial one not too long ago as well.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

I am using it to emphasize that a catch is defined by rules. Your belief that he caught is has to do with the fact he had it in his hands and got both feet in bounds. That is your personal ruleset for what defines a catch.

Someone familiar with college football would think differently. What makes you right when telling him Morgan did not catch the ball? The official NFL rules...the same rules that say Calvin Johnson did not catch the ball.

Would you stop with the one foot, two foot stuff. That's cut and dry. There's no scenario in the NFL were someone is going to say hey one foot clearly landed in bounds and the other out of bounds but that was a catch. There's no scenario in college football were someone's going to say hey he didn't get any feet in bounds but that was a catch.

Like I said before I understand what the rule book says, but it's clear that in this situation the rule book could not interpret what should have been a catch. It's happened before (see Bert Emanuel) and it will happen again. This isn't my opinion. It's everybody's opinion whose head isn't in the official rule keeper's @ss.

You have no clue what I am trying to communicate to you. There is no 100% accepted definition of a catch. It has to be defined by rules.

In the CHI/DET game everybody did their job correctly (except for CJ).

You disagree with the rule and think it should be changed so it would have been a catch.

Maybe the NFL will change that rule but it is not retroactive. Any change will happen after the fact (see Peyton Manning complaining about ref location and ball spotting).

The fact remains, based on the rules it was NOT a catch. Deal with it.

This belligerent act doesn't solve anything.

it was a catch.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

it was a catch.

Do you know what a conclusory statement is?

This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

No I think it's catch because it was a catch. F*ck how the rules define a catch. The rules aren't always right. See the tuck rule, see Bert Emanuel reception in the NFC title game. When I saw the play I knew that the refs were going to interpret it that way. They're dumb as sh*t.

The refs were smart to know the rule and ballsy to make that call (wonder if they decide differently in DET).

The rule may be stupid but the refs got it right. This seems to be the year of stupid rules...golf had a pretty controversial one not too long ago as well.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

You keep bringing up one foot, two foot. No one ever argues that rule. It's cut and dry.

I wouldn't say Calvin wasn't celebrating prematurely either.

I am using it to emphasize that a catch is defined by rules. Your belief that he caught is has to do with the fact he had it in his hands and got both feet in bounds. That is your personal ruleset for what defines a catch.

Someone familiar with college football would think differently. What makes you right when telling him Morgan did not catch the ball? The official NFL rules...the same rules that say Calvin Johnson did not catch the ball.

Would you stop with the one foot, two foot stuff. That's cut and dry. There's no scenario in the NFL were someone is going to say hey one foot clearly landed in bounds and the other out of bounds but that was a catch. There's no scenario in college football were someone's going to say hey he didn't get any feet in bounds but that was a catch.

Like I said before I understand what the rule book says, but it's clear that in this situation the rule book could not interpret what should have been a catch. It's happened before (see Bert Emanuel) and it will happen again. This isn't my opinion. It's everybody's opinion whose head isn't in the official rule keeper's @ss.

You have no clue what I am trying to communicate to you. There is no 100% accepted definition of a catch. It has to be defined by rules.

In the CHI/DET game everybody did their job correctly (except for CJ).

You disagree with the rule and think it should be changed so it would have been a catch.

Maybe the NFL will change that rule but it is not retroactive. Any change will happen after the fact (see Peyton Manning complaining about ref location and ball spotting).

The fact remains, based on the rules it was NOT a catch. Deal with it.

This belligerent act doesn't solve anything.

I understand exactly what you're saying I told you 6 times that yes it was a drop according to the rules. You're not talking rocket science here. I understand that the NFL has a definition of a catch and that the refs enforced it according to the rule book. The NFL also has a defintion of a fumble and according to them Tom Brady's fumble was actual a tuck.

Here's the difference between me and you I'm not taking the NFL rulebook as Gospel and saying the call was the correct call.

CJ did his job unfortunately for him the NFL rule book wasn't up to the task. The fact remains Detroit got hosed. Deal with it.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Sep 14, 2010 at 13:56:43 ]

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

How can you start off with this post and then complain about me being belligerent?

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Sep 14, 2010 at 14:01:16 ]

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
S.Hill got robbed on SUnday though.

That was a catch IMO

Your opinion ain't worth sh*t in the NFL. Rules are rules.

By definition that was not a catch.

Josh Morgan's "catch" in the endzone probably would have been a TD as well if not for the change to pushout rules.

Calvin Johnson should have paid attention during summer meetings when he got his rule updates

How can you start off with this post and then complain about me being belligerent?

Are you TonyStarks? If not then I didn't start off with this towards you.

You and I are discussing how it is/isn't a catch. You took the position that it doesn't matter what the rules say and mentioned heads up rear ends. That usually signals the end of reasonable discussion

Why do you edit every single one of your posts?