Stafford has Second Degree Separation.

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

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?

Are you a fairly young lawyer, Tigerlaw?

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

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?

I'm just saying don't live in a glass house.

No I didn't imply that it doesn't matter what the rules are. What I said was the rules were wrong, and CJ and Detroit got hosed. And you're lecturing me about not understanding what your points are.

I'm an idiot.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Sep 14, 2010 at 14:37:34 ]

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Are you a fairly young lawyer, Tigerlaw?

Depends how you define young. Years or time spent practicing patent law?
30+ and 4+

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

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?

I'm just saying don't live in a glass house.

No I didn't imply that it doesn't matter what the rules are. What I said was the rules were wrong, and CJ and Detroit got hosed. And you're lecturing me about not understanding what your points are.

I'm an idiot.

I understand your glass house comment but my remark to you was meant as "if we aren't making progress lets agree to disagree and walk away w/o making this an endless loop that escalates with no resolution. We don't need to get into a pissing match"

This is a sports forum I expect emotional posts and some aggresive tones. But if we aren't making progress we might as well cut it off. I'm not looking to troll here.

Originally posted by tjd808185:


I'm an idiot.

so am I....this is going on in a Stafford thread when there is a perfectly good CJ thread to vent in

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by tjd808185:


I'm an idiot.

so am I....this is going on in a Stafford thread when there is a perfectly good CJ thread to vent in

You asked why I edited all my posts. Got to clean it up the best I can.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Are you a fairly young lawyer, Tigerlaw?

Depends how you define young. Years or time spent practicing patent law?
30+ and 4+

Objection on the grounds of ambiguity noted. I meant the latter, in a generic sense: Years as a practicing lawyer.

In any event, welcome. There are at least five practicing attorneys that post here and at least two more youngsters in law school now.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

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.

anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.

Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

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.

anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.

Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.

OK. I'll bite.

I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.

Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.

Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.

It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed.

can see them either bring in Pat White or trading for B. Quinn

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

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.

anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.

Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.

OK. I'll bite.

I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.

Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.

Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.

It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed.

Good post, and yes, the Lions were robbed.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

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.

anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.

Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.

OK. I'll bite.

I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.

Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.

Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.

It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed.

Good post, and yes, the Lions were robbed.

x2. he had complete control of the ball until he let it go. the rule states that he must "maintain possession through the act of catching"--but that ball was caught. rolling over on the ground was not part of the "act of catching."

within the language of the rule, the refs made the technically "correct" call, but using common sense, that was a catch. its somewhat a "letter vs spirit" thing, but mostly its a question of "what is fair to the competition." The Lions deserved a win. They made a play that should have decided the game.

isnt this the same injury smith had?

Originally posted by Daniel2778:
isnt this the same injury smith had?

No. Smith had a Grade 3 separation...even worse.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/49ers/archives/015169.html

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

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.

anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.

Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.

I don't want to keep this thread sidetracked since it is a Stafford topic. I will quote and reply to you in the CJ thread