the ball was definitely going outa bounds either way ....
-
Comment -
Originally posted by swordsandtequila
I strongly disagree with your premise, S&T...that is just like saying if an offensive player fumbles at the 50, and then the defensive guy intentionally bats it out of bounds, then the ball should be given to the defensive team!...doesn't work that way...the offensive team still retains possession...so why should it be any different if a team is driving and getting ready to score?!...it's almost like a double standard and contradiction...
Comment -
Okay we can get rid of many rules in the rulebook if nobody ever fumblesOriginally posted by fugitive
Comment -
Originally Posted by swordsandtequila
Sorry Manster, disagree. Majority of the rules benefit the offense; keep the touchback rule and eliminate the batting penalty. It's perfectly legal to bat the ball out of bounds on an onside kick attempt, why should it be any different on a potential turnover? The less judgement calls the better.
Sir, batting the ball out of bounds on an onside kick is nowadays a penalty.Comment -
Jim Caldwell and his coaches should be ashamed. What is he on----xanax? He's comatose. Not one person on that sideline was upset about the call when it happened. Move him along like they did to Philbin. Bring back Wayne Fontes.Comment -
Little confused how the lions didn't notice Jim Caldwell
Has nothing going on in his head
Art shell part II yet he keeps getting jobs, staring blankly aheadComment -
Wrong. Rule 12, Section 4, Article 1 NFL Rulebook:Originally posted by FlaxMartinOriginally Posted by swordsandtequila
Sorry Manster, disagree. Majority of the rules benefit the offense; keep the touchback rule and eliminate the batting penalty. It's perfectly legal to bat the ball out of bounds on an onside kick attempt, why should it be any different on a potential turnover? The less judgement calls the better.
Sir, batting the ball out of bounds on an onside kick is nowadays a penalty.
Section 4: Illegal Bats and Kicks
Article 1: Illegal Bat. It is an illegal bat if:
(a) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent’s goal line; or
(b) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either endzone; or
(c) an offensive player bats a backward pass in flight toward his opponent’s goal line.Comment -
The ref behind calvin also had his flag out, in his hand.... But never threw it.
What was he about to call?Comment -
I get what you're saying Manster. The key difference is out of bounds in the field of play versus through the end zone. Fumble out of bounds, ball stays with last team to have possession. Fumble through the endzone, touchback. Why should a batted ball be any different? Just another silly rule to slow down the game.Originally posted by Da Manster!I strongly disagree with your premise, S&T...that is just like saying if an offensive player fumbles at the 50, and then the defensive guy intentionally bats it out of bounds, then the ball should be given to the defensive team!...doesn't work that way...the offensive team still retains possession...so why should it be any different if a team is driving and getting ready to score?!...it's almost like a double standard and contradiction...Comment -
Just ask the guy that decided to bat it out. He said he didn't want to take the chance of trying to grab the ball and fumbling it to a lions player for a TD.Originally posted by swordsandtequila
SIMPLE.Comment -
Okay?Originally posted by DOM_TorettoComment -
Just another bad rule in a overfilled rule book, but also another case of league's agenda coming thru and Seahags benefit yet again. Poor Lions been Fukked by this WWE nonsense 2 out of last 5 games poor bastards lol. C'Mon man did anyone think league gonna let the Hags go to 1-3 losing to Detroit if given opportunity to step in? As I've said before this is a .500 type team this year and won't be getting to another SB but help like that doesn't hurt!Comment
