Official San Diego Chargers @ Denver Broncos Game Thread 11.18.2012

[Requiem]

How did the game become 30-23? Last I saw it was 24 to 16. Looks like we left a lot of points on the field. Who got stupid?

[DarkHorse]

Rahim Moore is starting to really pick his game up!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by DarkHorse

Rahim Moore is starting to really pick his game up!

He's been pretty damn good all season long actually...

[Bronco X]

Originally Posted by Vine

This discussion no longer has to do with the Broncos, it has to do with judging football rules and the interpretation of rules. If you don't like the discussion, you don't have to participate.

Okay...

RB depth is the biggest issue facing this team.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Requiem

How did the game become 30-23? Last I saw it was 24 to 16. Looks like we left a lot of points on the field. Who got stupid?

Turnover issues and a lot of field goals. That sums it up for the most part.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by 24champ

I should have clarified, when was the last time the Broncos swept the division? 1998-99?

Yes I believe that would be the year. I'm pretty sure we dropped at least one division game in 2005.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by 24champ

When was the last time that was done?

I'm guessing you'd have to go back to Jake the Snake and Mike Anderson on that one.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Action

You guys can't be this....

Oh wait, I'm on the omane.

Let me also add that he got two feet down and his KNEE was down before the ball came out, so the play is dead regardless.

Anyone questioning that play is just blind.

The end.

The SD bench & coaching staff thought it was going to be overturned so there is that.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm guessing you'd have to go back to Jake the Snake and Mike Anderson on that one.

Looked it up and that team dropped one in the division. Which means the '98-'99 season has to be the last time it happened. Honestly, I'm not sure it ever happened in any other season before that either, as they had to play eight division games back then.

[That One Guy]

I was trying to find the NFL statement and can't recall the exact player that the NFL responded to but did find this from an earlier article:

The rule comes from the effort to rectify the Bert Emanuel play from the 1999 NFC title game, when the catch was made, a portion of the ball struck the ground, but Emanuel never lost possession of it. Now, the ball may hit the ground as long as it doesn’t move — and as long as whenever a player going to the ground while catching the ball maintains possession through the act of going to the ground.
That’s what apparently happened with Tamme on Sunday night. He caught the ball near the end zone, and while crossing the plane also was falling and when he landed the ball squirted out.
The replay official — who is not a replacement employee — failed to buzz the referee for a closer look. If a closer look had been taken, a tough decision may have arisen.
Yes, the player crossed into the end zone while falling down. And, yes, he performed the so-called “second act” of lunging the ball forward, even though he already was in the end zone when he did.
Still, Tamme was going to the ground and he failed to maintain possession once he hit the ground. Despite multiple discussions and examples and analyses over the years, the rule continues to require possession through the act of going to the ground, with no example for breaking the plane of the end zone while falling or otherwise performing a second act. If you’re going to the ground, you’re required (per the rule book) to maintain possession after hitting the ground. Tamme didn’t.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ck-into-focus/

PFT has stayed on this back and forth all along but there's one example showing that the second act and endzone is not supposed to overrule the current catch rules.

[DenverBroncosJM]

Originally Posted by Action

There's no where that needs to be said, because once the ball crosses the goal line with possession the play is dead.

If they needed to specify it, they'd specify it under a special circumstance when the ball crosses the goal line...but there is NOT...

Ball crosses goal line with possession = play over.

Can we go back to July before this **** head was on the boards?

[Vine]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

I was trying to find the NFL statement and can't recall the exact player that the NFL responded to but did find this from an earlier article:

The rule comes from the effort to rectify the Bert Emanuel play from the 1999 NFC title game, when the catch was made, a portion of the ball struck the ground, but Emanuel never lost possession of it. Now, the ball may hit the ground as long as it doesn’t move — and as long as whenever a player going to the ground while catching the ball maintains possession through the act of going to the ground.
That’s what apparently happened with Tamme on Sunday night. He caught the ball near the end zone, and while crossing the plane also was falling and when he landed the ball squirted out.
The replay official — who is not a replacement employee — failed to buzz the referee for a closer look. If a closer look had been taken, a tough decision may have arisen.
Yes, the player crossed into the end zone while falling down. And, yes, he performed the so-called “second act” of lunging the ball forward, even though he already was in the end zone when he did.
Still, Tamme was going to the ground and he failed to maintain possession once he hit the ground. Despite multiple discussions and examples and analyses over the years, the rule continues to require possession through the act of going to the ground, with no example for breaking the plane of the end zone while falling or otherwise performing a second act. If you’re going to the ground, you’re required (per the rule book) to maintain possession after hitting the ground. Tamme didn’t.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ck-into-focus/

PFT has stayed on this back and forth all along but there's one example showing that the second act and endzone is not supposed to overrule the current catch rules.

Tamme play video

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...108799&page=50


From fan who loves pure competition and has a desire to see fair NFL rules applying to all situations, I think the Tamme touchdown should stand, I think the Chargers touchdown should have stood, and I think the Calvin Johnson play from a few years ago should have been ruled a touchdown.

Why can't the NFL make things simple, and state the rule that if a player controls the ball and gets two feet down, then it's a catch, regardless of whether he is in the endzone or not, and whatever else happens after two feet down are established with control of the ball?

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Guys, who gives a ****. We're arguing about this like it made a lick of difference

[Vine]

Originally Posted by DenverBroncosJM

Can we go back to July before this **** head was on the boards?

This coming from a waterboy?

[Vine]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Guys, who gives a ****. We're arguing about this like it made a lick of difference

You are naive to think that such a situation will never arise in future games in the NFL.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Guys, who gives a ****. We're arguing about this like it made a lick of difference

It's top 2 (along with defenders being fined when offensive players drop their heads) in terms of obscure or vague rules which the NFL insists on enforcing despite the clear defiance of common sense. It's a huge drag on enjoyment of football at this point.

[DenverBroncosJM]

Originally Posted by Vine

This coming from a waterboy?

Yup from 2006!

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

It's top 2 (along with defenders being fined when offensive players drop their heads) in terms of obscure or vague rules which the NFL insists on enforcing despite the clear defiance of common sense. It's a huge drag on enjoyment of football at this point.

Yes, and this argument is so ****ing enjoyable

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Yes, and this argument is so ****ing enjoyable

If it weren't for one guy being a condescending dick and swearing he knows the rules above all else, the conversation would've already died as just about everyone else agreed there's too much obscurity in the rules.

I mean, feel free to present a black/white explanation that would define whether or not that was a catch and end this discussion. We'd all appreciate it - sincerely.

[Vine]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Yes, and this argument is so ****ing enjoyable

There are 12 other active threads with messages being posted in all of them in the last 20 minutes, but yet, you come into this thread complaining about the topic of discussion? Why don't you discuss items in other threads or, even start your own thread on anything you want to be discussed?

[DenverBroncosJM]

Originally Posted by Vine

There are 12 other active threads with messages being posted in all of them in the last 20 minutes, but yet, you come into this thread complaining about the topic of discussion? Why don't you discuss items in other threads or, even start your own thread on anything you want to be discussed?

Good post ring of famer Vine!

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by DenverBroncosJM

Good post ring of famer Vine!

You're starting to embarrass yourself.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

I see this has been a lively discussion. Pretty sure that's what message boards are for.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Al Wilson

How many dropped passes does this p***Y have all year? Seriously, get Manning someone that can ****ing catch the football, and a runningback that doesn't ****ing fumble. Unbelieveable.

so pray tell, where are you going to find a RB that never fumbles or a WR that never drops a pass? Un ****ing believable

[errand]

Originally Posted by maher_tyler

When was the last time we saw the D and STs play this well?

Last week....