steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Bingo.

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

But you still know that Vegas pays the officials off, right?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Still a fan of a team, my zeal has died down because I'm older and I realize it's less important than what's for dinner, but still a fan. Just not a fanboy.

FanMAN?

[PackersFTW]

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.

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.

[ajmc]

It seems, PackersFTW, you suffer from a misconception. Although you have every right to form your opinions on whatever basis you so choose, there is no automatic guarantee that your opinion makes any sense or that anybody else must agree with you.

Despite your vast "viewing experience", you seem oblivious to the basic fact that although many plays may be very similar, no two plays are exactly alike and despite consistent effort, over long periods, and repetitve mechanics study and review, it's very unlikely that covering officials are in exactly the same spot and have exactly the same unobstructed view for any two plays, similar or not.

What you designate as clearly, "a fumble after possession" is your opinion.
You're certainly welcome to opine, "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", but what you seem to have a lot of difficulty accepting is that what you opine, doesn't really matter all that much, beyond the limited confines of your opinion.

Knowing the rules and the language of the rules is important, but al least as important, is the common sense and feel for the game to know how to apply the rules for the reasons and purpose they were created.

Remember, in the final analysis, it really doesn't make any relevant difference, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".