Quote:
Originally Posted by newmdref
I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established. When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.
|
it used to be where you had to make "a football move", but they recently erased that from the rulebook. however, it seems they still use this, because there have been countless times this season where he had clear posession with both feet down, and they called it incomplete. so from all the challenges i have seen since this rule change, it appears they are ruling it the same as they have for decades, which is you have to have the ball for probably at least a half second or so, and you have to start to move. again though, i have seen so many plays where they call it incomplete when it was very clear it was a fumble after possession. i'd say more often than not, split second possessions are incorrectly called incomplete when they had a firm grasp on the ball and both feet down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverAndBack
No, "fanboy" is a derogatory term. A huge fan is a huge fan, a rabid fan, a hardcore fan. A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.
|
"Fanboy is a term used to describe any individual who is devoted to a single subject in an emotional or fanatical manner, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession."
unless you consider somebody who is obsessed to be an irrational idiot, i would have to disagree. i hate the term fanboy anyways, it sounds so stupid. anyways, you calling me a fanboy JUST because i said something somebody else claimed i already knew makes no sense. that's why i started this discussion. just because i said something somebody else claimed i already knew doesn't make me an irrationally obsessed idiot. it doesn't even make sense. of course you could have just been responding with a generic statement to the guy who said this and had no idea to what he was responding to.