Official San Diego Chargers @ Denver Broncos Game Thread 11.18.2012

[Jekyll15Hyde]

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.

Wrong in the case where the act of gaining possession of the pass has not completed. In the case where he caught it was but was going to the ground as a result of opponent contact while catching it, he has to maintain possession through the falling to the ground. Or he can make the 2nd move which will negate the having to keep possession though the contact with the ground

You look really bad with your condescending tone but dont understand the rules.

[broncocalijohn]

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?

You did for stop watching the game!

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde

Wrong in the case where the act of gaining possession of the pass has not completed. That is what this is about.

If he caught it was but was going to the ground as a result of opponent contact while catching it, he has to maintain possession through the falling to the ground.

You look really bad with your condescending tone but dont understand the rules.

But isnt that rule when you catch it inside the endzone? Since he caught it outside the inside and was running or falling to the goalline, once it crosses that goalline, play is over. I believe that is why they called it like they did. It is a different scenario from being outside the endzone to catching a ball inside the endzone. He had possesion when he crossed the goalline.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

But isnt that rule when you catch it inside the endzone? Since he caught it outside the inside and was running or falling to the goalline, once it crosses that goalline, play is over. I believe that is why they called it like they did. It is a different scenario from being outside the endzone to catching a ball inside the endzone. He had possesion when he crossed the goalline.

This is the rule for completing a pass period regardless of where you catch it.

[errand]

Originally Posted by go_broncos

This team sucks..

Your honor, the prosecution rests......

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

But isnt that rule when you catch it inside the endzone? Since he caught it outside the inside and was running or falling to the goalline, once it crosses that goalline, play is over. I believe that is why they called it like they did. It is a different scenario from being outside the endzone to catching a ball inside the endzone. He had possesion when he crossed the goalline.

Check out the article that I posted a link to a couple pages back. It was called (after the CJ ruling a few years ago) that a second motion (in this case extending the ball) would complete the catch but it was later clarified by the NFL that it was not the case and nothing negates the necessity to hold onto the football while falling. This also was the case within the last two weeks on a play (I wanna say a Thursday game as I recall Mayock incorrectly predicting the results) where a player caught the ball then stepped out of bounds then went to the ground and lost the ball. Mayock said the completion of the catch (which he'd established) then touching the line should have ended the play immediately so the going to the ground shouldn't matter. In the end, it was ruled that even though the play ended when he touched the line, going to the ground afterward dislodged the ball so it was incomplete.

The NFL need to go with the guys in a bar rule on completions.

[AZBroncomaniac]

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.

So.... when a receiver catches the ball in the endzone close to the edge, gets both feet inbounds with possession but falls to the ground out of bounds and the ball comes loose as the player falls to the ground, it's still a TD?

I've seen this scenario called incomplete more than I can count, but by your statement it's a TD. Care to differentiate the two scenarios?

[errand]

Originally Posted by Goobzilla

These tards don't even know their own rules.

...good thing many on here stood by them in solidarity when they held the NFL hostage.

[errand]

Originally Posted by jerseyguy4

I thnk that's fair I think I get it. Although announcers misspoke.

He had posession BEFORE the end zone. Therefore, TD as the ball breaks the plane. If he caught in the air in the endzone, then he must retain possession after hitting the ground (which he did not)

Best example of the ruling is the SBXII catch of Butch Johnson vs. our beloved Broncos.....

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The NFL need to go with the guys in a bar rule on completions.

THIS!

[Action]

Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde

Wrong in the case where the act of gaining possession of the pass has not completed. In the case where he caught it was but was going to the ground as a result of opponent contact while catching it, he has to maintain possession through the falling to the ground. Or he can make the 2nd move which will negate the having to keep possession though the contact with the ground

You look really bad with your condescending tone but dont understand the rules.

What do you mean "wrong"?

What you just described was someone not gaining possession.

What I said is very simple:

Possession + cross goal line = play dead.

You don't understand what you're disputing...

[Action]

Originally Posted by AZBroncomaniac

So.... when a receiver catches the ball in the endzone close to the edge, gets both feet inbounds with possession but falls to the ground out of bounds and the ball comes loose as the player falls to the ground, it's still a TD?

I've seen this scenario called incomplete more than I can count, but by your statement it's a TD. Care to differentiate the two scenarios?

A TD caught in the endzone is different from someone getting possession and crossing the goal line.

Someone who catches a TD in the endzone has to "finish his possession" or whatever you want to call it.

The moment the ball crosses the goal line with possession the play is dead.

In the play at hand, if Alexander didn't have control of the ball (possession) going into the end zone, then he'd have to "finish his possession."

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde

This is the rule for completing a pass period regardless of where you catch it.

That is only the rule for a reception in the end zone and for going out of bounds.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by Action

What do you mean "wrong"?

What you just described was someone not gaining possession.

What I said is very simple:

Possession + cross goal line = play dead.

You don't understand what you're disputing...

And you are wrong. Very simple. See exhibit A.

*Exhibit A: the words out the referee's mouth after the replay. They it the 2nd move (CJ Rule). He didnt say the player crossed the line and the play was over.

[Action]

Originally Posted by Vine

Saying that he got two feet down and a knee does not strengthen your argument when you consider what all Calvin Johnson did on his disallowed td catch.

Why are we still comparing the catch to the Calvin Johnson play?

The Calvin Johnson play OCCURRED IN THE ENDZONE.

This play occurred OUTSIDE THE ENDZONE.

The rule is clear as day:

POSSESSION + CROSSING GOAL LINE = TOUCHDOWN, PLAY DEAD.

Just like if someone's helmet comes off...doesn't matter what happens, the moment it comes off the play is dead.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

That is only the rule for a reception in the end zone and for going out of bounds.

Nope. Go look at the thread that Vine started. Rules spelled out there.

[Action]

Read:

The touchdown is scored the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line—that is, any part of the ball is in the space on, above, or across the goal line—while in possession of a player whose team is trying to score in that end zone. The play is dead and the touchdown scores the moment the ball crosses the goal line in possession of a player, or the moment the ball comes into possession of an offensive player in the end zone (having established possession by controlling the ball and having one or both feet or another part of the body on the ground). The slightest part of the ball being over the goal line is sufficient for a touchdown to score.

[Action]

Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde

And you are wrong. Very simple. See exhibit A.

*Exhibit A: the words out the referee's mouth after the replay. They it the 2nd move (CJ Rule). He didnt say the player crossed the line and the play was over.

I am not wrong.

You are retarded.

These are two true statements as the following will prove:

This is what the referee said word for word:

"After review the ruling on the field is confirmed. The receiver had possession of the ball and as a second act, set the ball across the goal line.. Therefore ending the process of the catch. It is a touchdown."


The reason why setting the ball across the goal line with possession ends the process of the catch because IT'S A TOUCHDOWN WHEN THE BALL CROSSES THE GOAL LINE IN POSSESSION OF A PLAYER, thus, MARKING THE PLAY DEAD that very moment.

THis is literally what I've been saying in this whole thread...

again

POSSESSION + CROSSING GOAL LINE = TOUCHDOWN PLAY DEAD.

This is not confusing at all.

[Action]

Again -

Hate me if you want but after today, I hope those who read finally understand the damn rule.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by Action

Read:

The touchdown is scored the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line—that is, any part of the ball is in the space on, above, or across the goal line—while in possession of a player whose team is trying to score in that end zone. The play is dead and the touchdown scores the moment the ball crosses the goal line in possession of a player, or the moment the ball comes into possession of an offensive player in the end zone (having established possession by controlling the ball and having one or both feet or another part of the body on the ground). The slightest part of the ball being over the goal line is sufficient for a touchdown to score.

Everybody understands this rule.

He has to have established possession FIRST before crossing the goal line ends the play.

The act of establishing possession has a number of caveats. If he gets 2 feet down (1 knee, elbow, shin, forearm, ass) and makes a 'football move', possession has been established. If he is contacted and that contact brings him to the ground before the possession could be established, then he has to maintain control through contacting the ground.

I am only arguing this point. I can see where are ruling he established possession. I think its marginal but there. Your point of having 2 feet and the crossing the goal line isnt true if possession hasnt been established.


The whole question is whether or not possession was established before he was contacted. They ruled he did and so doesnt need to maintain it.

[Action]

Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde

Everybody understands this rule.

He has to have established possession FIRST before crossing the goal line ends the play.

The act of establishing possession has a number of caveats. If he gets 2 feet down (1 knee, elbow, shin, forearm, ass) and makes a 'football move', possession has been established. If he is contacted and that contact brings him to the ground before the possession could be established, then he has to maintain control through contacting the ground.

I am only arguing this point. I can see where are ruling he established possession. I think its marginal but there. Your point of having 2 feet and the crossing the goal line isnt true if possession hasnt been established.


The whole question is whether or not possession was established before he was contacted. They ruled he did and so doesnt need to maintain it.

Then you're in agreement with me with the rule... however

He already established possession of the ball, he landed on two feet and as he was lunging toward the endzone (making a football move).

So he had 2 feet down, his knee hit the ground as the ball crossed the goal line... all while he was in full control of the ball.

That's pretty clear possession.

You're further ahead with the rule than most people arguing the play in this thread...

[Jekyll15Hyde]

I posted this is on the other thread and its valuable here:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

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 throughout the process of contacting 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.

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by go_broncos

This team sucks..

You are such a stupid ****

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by Action

Then you're in agreement with me with the rule... however

He already established possession of the ball, he landed on two feet and as he was lunging toward the endzone (making a football move).

So he had 2 feet down, his knee hit the ground as the ball crossed the goal line... all while he was in full control of the ball.

That's pretty clear possession.

You're further ahead with the rule than most people arguing the play in this thread...

I need to see the replay again but to me it looked like Carter (?) contacted him him before he lunged. The color guy thought the same thing. If so, then he should have needed to control it.

I guess they could have said that the contact isnt what sent him to the ground and that he did it under his own power. If so, then play is over when the ball crosses.

[Action]

Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde

I posted this is on the other thread and its valuable here:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 states:

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 throughout the process of contacting 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.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the play.

The play is dead once the ball crosses the goal line with possession of the ball.

The only thing that can be contested here is if DAlexander got possession of the ball.