 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
ABOVE the wrist, i.e. the forearm. If hand/wrist then not down.Originally Posted by TheMoneyShot
So Desean Jackson should of been down?
Why is the NFL such a MAFIA that they make up rules for whatever reason? I can't take anymore of this sh#$ this year!
These rules are stupid. You need a magnifying glass on this one.
When you're cupping and holding onto the ball... and that hand, wrist hits.... you're down. Ground can't cause fumble. So, it looks like the NFL needs to figure out what the hell their calling every game. GROUND CAN'T CAUSE FUMBLE. And it did.
Please. That's a fumble a hundred times out of a hundred. Even if the call on the field was ground caused the fumble, it's getting overturned. There have been an astonishing amount of bad calls this season, and even more questionable ones. This was neither.
you're not down
If it's a fumble 100 out of 100 times. Where does the rule... "Ground can't cause a fumble" come into play at??? Give me an example.
So you're saying if I'm cupping the ball with my wrist and hand... and my wrist hits the ground (not the ball itself - ball is in air off ground) I'm still alive and not down?
But if I place wrist up in the air (ball touching the ground) just the opposite.. I'm down???
Is that what you're saying?
Is this a real question? Not trying to be a dick, but I'm legitimately unsure if I'm being trolled here. There are a ton of examples. Obviously they're all contingent upon being touched by a defender prior to hitting the ground.
1. The runner is pushed down and his knee hits the ground. The impact of this causes ball to squirt loose. Not a fumble.
2. The runner is pushed down and his elbow hits the ground. The impact of this causes ball to squirt loose. Not a fumble.
3. The runner is pushed down and his back hits the ground. The impact of this causes ball to squirt loose. Not a fumble.
I could continue but I'm sure we're clear here. The wrist is part of the hand and thus occasionally used by a runner who is falling down to prevent any other parts of the body from hitting the ground, which obviously keeps the play going.
Jackson wasn't down. He wasn't close to down. He made an idiotic play and tried to salvage it by playing hero ball. Didn't work and he fumbled the football.
yup it seems that way. I hear what you are saying. Just quoting the official rule is all.
No, I'm not being a dik. He was contacted while his hand hit the ground. Therefore... down by contact.
I'm not worrying about a ball handler who isn't down by contact....
All I'm saying is... if that what the rule states.... we would have to go to replay every single time because there is just no way with the naked eye.... with things so fast... that we could see all those details. Personally, I don't recall ever a player like Desean Jackson called "NOT DOWN".
If you or another poster knows of any similar play.... I'd like to see it at youtube etc.
Like I said... I've seen plays in which a split second the ball was punched out.... just before hitting ground. But if you're calling that a fumble... that's just ridiculous.
I had no money on the game... except for the UNDER.
One. More. Time.
Any part of the body hits the ground when contacted by a defender ball carrier is down. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BALL CARRIERS FEET AND ANY PART OF HIS HAND, INCLUDING THE WRIST. Can't be any clearer than this.
So answer my question.... if Desean Jackson extended the ball.... wrist to the air.... ball hitting the ground... would that of been down by contact or a fumble?
if you got the ball and let's say you are running towards the defender and you attempt to hurdle him (like we've seem many times), and you quite making it and you get flipped over and land hands first and then fumble ... then that's a fumble. The ground can cause a fumble because you aren't officially downed yet. If however, your elbow hits and then you fumble ... then that's a fumble.
What I believe is.... when the NFL made this rule... it was designed for your "non carrying arm/hand" meaning.... we've seen players get hit... and their off hand props them up to gain a few more yards.
But for the Desean Jackson case.... no one wants to answer the question... if the wrist was to the air and he got hit with possession... and extended the ball for whatever reason... ball hitting the ground... wrist to the air... he would of been considered down by contact.
Then why in the hell because he is cupping the ball (with full possession).... backhand hits ground... and ball pops loose... and it's not considered down by contact???? The rule needs to change. Because in all essence... it wasn't the hit the jarred the ball loose... you lost your grip on the ball when the back of your hand hit the ground. It's simply a horrible rule.
And... like I said.... I don't recall ever seeing a similar play in the NFL called this way.
not sure if anyone mentioned it already, but the refs screwed the pooch in the skins' favor when they ruled price's play a fumble.... dude's ass was clearly on the ground as the skins' defender was pulling at the ball, prior to price losing it, and the skins' defender's hand was off the ball thereafter, and it was still in price's hands, (well after his ass and legs are on the turf); the ball then finally comes out of price's hands, and into the air to thereafter be recovered by a skins player.....
this gave the skins the ball back in their own territory; but for this blown call, the pokes probably score on that drive, as well, and take the lead..........
and for the record, d jackson's return, as retarded as it was, seemed to result in him being down (shin/leg) contact, before he coughed that up....... was shocked when that call wasn't overturned.....
both calls seemed to be blown despite instant replay review.... why have the shit if you can't even get it right with the obvious slow mo replay right in front of you........
i think the refs gave the boys that djackson fumble just to penalize him for such a stupid runback attempt in the first place.....
Just a reminder in case y'all forgot. All sports is fixed.
Jackson wasn't close to being down. It was a fumble clear as day.
Not sure how anyone couldn't see this??
|
|
SBR
Poster of
Year
2011
ps, and i thought the ground can always cause a fumble if you're hitting the ground untouched by a defender; that the "ground can't cause a fumble rule" was only in play if you've been hit or otherwise made contact with a defender, which is the cause of you hitting the ground.....
ie, a dumbass running in open the open field show slips or trips over his own feet, falls to the ground, untouched by any defensive player, and coughs it up, is not down and has fumbled the ball....... just like if you fall, untouched, and get up and keep goin.... has that rule changed? (I sure as hell don't think so....) but in such instances, the ground can obviously cause a fumble, and the ball is live.....
replay shows him being scrunched to the turf, knee in contact with it, while still possessing the ball.... clear as day..... ball comes out after that, at least from the few angles i saw it....... (and i'm a fn cowboys/texans fan)
ps. i assume the jackson fumble we're talking about is the f'n kick return at the end of the game (i didn't see all the game)
And the biased Dallas lover checks in.
Knew this was coming
How in the hell is this a fumble?
fumble
wait a f'n minute here........ i didn't have time to even go to the highlights of this gb/det game to see what all the hoopla was about.... (obviously i've been too busy concocting Kardashiho xmas poems for the Holiday Season), but if this clip above is the complaint, anyone saying detroit benefitted from a no call here is smoking f'n crack........ this is a f'n clear case of offensive pass interference.... when i first saw it, i fig'd detroit was on offense and got a pass interference call to some gb homers' dismay.... but after seeing the 84 on the receiver and two db's in the clip; this is clearly offensive pass interference as 84 makes the tackle prematurely once he sees its in all likelihood gonna be a pick........Glad to see somebody was watching the same game as me. Everybody calling for a flag on the Lions for that play need to get their eyes/head checked. If anything, that was offensive pass interference. People need to remember that the defensive back has just as much right to the ball as the receiver and #42 had established such good position that he, in a sense, became the receiver and the Packers receiver (de facto DB at that point) hugged him as the Lions player was making a play on the ball.
If the jersey numbers were reversed, the Packers would have been flagged for that 100% of the time. People need to quit pointing to this play as a "missed call" that somehow benefited the Lions. It's like viewers have been so brainwashed by the deluge of flags in today's NFL, that they expect the defense to be penalized for any and all contact that occurs in the secondary. Again, the DB had position and was illegally contacted by the receiver that possibly prevented an interception. I'm cool with the no-call on the play, but if there was a penalty missed... it was offensive P.I. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
from this angle, it's more questionable than from the other angle i saw it, where it appeared that his shin was down prior to his hand (with ball in it) even making contact with the ground..... in this view, it would appear that only his two feet are on the ground when the back of his ball carrying hand hits the ground, causing the fumble......How in the hell is this a fumble?
if the ball carrying hand is exempt from the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule, ie, has to be some other part of your body other than feet and ball carrying hand on the ground, this would appear to be a fumble......... what does the "official rule" say about the ball carrying hand making contact?
ps... jackson's "post losing the ball" conduct sure as hell indicated that HE thought he'd fumbled...
seeing the rule, excluding the hand and wrist, it's a fumble from the view above as is; if his ELBOW had made the first contact with the ground, he's down by contact.... as it was apparently the back of his ball carrying hand.... IT'S A FUMBLE!!!!!!!!!!
SKINS STill got a break on price's play, as it was the reverse of a DonkLand Play (Ass Up, Face Down), as price was "ASS DOWN, face up, before ball came out)!
I don't get it. What part of his body do you think hit the ground before the ball began coming loose?How in the hell is this a fumble?
i thought it was clear from the replay from the back that his elbow hit the ground
I clearly see the back of wrist... and as high as... front portion of forearm. But not total forearm.
Like I said... show me an NFL play prior to this one... that resembles this.... and tell me it was a fumble. You won't be able to find one.
What cracks me up is that everyone is analyzing back part of wrist... ball off of ground.It's a fumble.
This is how I view the play.
1. Offensive player with ball is contacted by defensive player. You don't see the contact? There's a knee to his shoulder pads... and a leg to his helmet with offensive player still maintaining possession.
2. As player (that was contacted) goes to the ground... with said possession... the ball pops loose from contact with the ground.
3. Ground can't cause a fumble once player is contacted.
Ruling on field is NO FUMBLE. Down by contact.
Not one Dallas player forced that ball out.
This should settle the issue once and for all. Sports Science (ESPN) broke down the play from start to fumble. The 27 and 36 second mark clearly shows he wasn't down as the ball is coming loose. Close, yes, but a fumble nonetheless. TV viewers don't always have the same views as the replay booth.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:14318270
Forget about all this. The call on the field was a fumble. You're telling me there was conclusive, indisputable evidence to change that call? Stop it.I clearly see the back of wrist... and as high as... front portion of forearm. But not total forearm.
Like I said... show me an NFL play prior to this one... that resembles this.... and tell me it was a fumble. You won't be able to find one.
What cracks me up is that everyone is analyzing back part of wrist... ball off of ground.
This is how I view the play.
1. Offensive player with ball is contacted by defensive player. You don't see the contact? There's a knee to his shoulder pads... and a leg to his helmet with offensive player still maintaining possession.
2. As player (that was contacted) goes to the ground... with said possession... the ball pops loose from contact with the ground.
3. Ground can't cause a fumble once player is contacted.
Ruling on field is NO FUMBLE. Down by contact.
Not one Dallas player forced that ball out.
Money Shot buried yet again.
Lol.
SBR
Poster of
Year
2011
Also Romo & The Cowboys.
Have fun with that
Touché
SBR
Poster of
Year
2011
Reply With Quote
POOLSIDE gave opie1988 1 Betpoint(s) for this post.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4322323/nopi.0.gif)
