DOLPHINS: week 3

[ldouglas at gmail.com]

I do - when a receiver catches the ball then is immediately hit and
loses the ball. I believe that it is next to impossible to determine
if the receiver caught the ball without replay. Also - take for
example the Troy Palamalu INT vs the Colts in the 05 divisional
playoff (the one where Bettis fumbled at the goal line and that DB
picked it up and got shoe-string tackled by Big Ben only because he
was stabbed earlier in the week by his wife then Vanderjagt kicked
that boomerang FG to lose at the end) where he caught the ball, had 2
feet down, fell down, then lost the ball. That was ruled an incomplete
because he didn't maintain possession after hitting the ground. were
we to go by your rule, that would have been an INT, a fumble, and a
recovery - and I think you'd have similar plays like that all over
football - 2 coaches challenges wouldn't be enough.

btw - isn't it great to argue about football again?

On 8/25/08, J. Prescott <spartacusii at kc.rr.com> wrote:
> I know what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but in your latter
> receiver example, the receiver did not establish possession, whereas the RB
> and former receiver (in your examples above) did.
>
> Mark
> --
> http://fzdolfan.blogspot.com
> http://www.myspace.com/fzdolfan
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes I did - the receiver catches the ball cleanly AND has 2 feet in the
> field of play.  Are we going to say that the field is 'x' number of feet
> wide for every player except a receiver catching a ball on the sidelines?
> Sounds silly, I know - but isn't that essentially what is happening?  We
> seem to have bought into this notion that a receiver has to have held the
> ball for some indeterminate length of time.  I simply see nothing wrong with
> a rule declaring the receiver have control of the ball AND 2 feet in bounds.
> Anything that happens to the ball after that is immaterial.  I fail to see
> where that creates any complications - whatsoever.
>
>
>
> jp
>
>
>
> www.JPrescottPhoto.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: dolphins-disc-bounces at phins.com
> [mailto:dolphins-disc-bounces at phins.com] On Behalf Of Mark Clark
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:53 AM
> To: General Discussion of the Miami Dolphins
> Subject: Re: DOLPHINS: week 3
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM, J. Prescott <spartacusii at kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You say we need less arbitrary rules.  Well - it seems to me that this whole
> rule we are discussing is arbitrary to start with.  The receiver(s) have a
> whole different dimension added to them that RBs do not have to contend
> with.  A RB can extend the ball, say, trying to reach for a 1st down, & when
> the ball hits the ground & he loses it, it's not a fumble.  But if a
> receiver stretches for a catch @ the sideline, & drags his 2 feet in bounds
> - no bobbling the ball - solid catch.  But he is all stretched out - hits
> the ground, & the ball pops out, he gets rewarded with 'an incomplete pass'.
> Any other play, AS SOON AS the player goes out of bounds, the play is OVER.
> Period.  We don't see rulings on a player running OOB & losing the ball any
> other time.
>
>
> I know what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but in your latter
> receiver example, the receiver did not establish possession, whereas the RB
> and former receiver (in your examples above) did.
>
>
> Mark
> --
> http://fzdolfan.blogspot.com
> http://www.myspace.com/fzdolfan
>
> Emma Goldman  - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
>
>


-- 
==============================
War Eagle