"That play where the Steelers got to the one yard line & the ball spit out of his arms looked like a fumble to me."

The ground can't cause a fumble.  The play you're thinking of, the ball didn't come out until the player's arm that was carrying the ball hit the ground.  That's not a fumble.

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

It's been a while since I paid that much attention to Football & frankly I didn't understand the fumble issue.  Did the rules change about fumbles?  I thought if a guy goes down & the ball spits out that it's a fumble.  It appears there's a lot more to it these days.  That play where the Steelers got to the one yard line & the ball spit out of his arms looked like a fumble to me.

It also looked like the Steelers got away with a lot of "facemask" grabbing.

Why it's funny you should ask (as the rest of the crowd groaned) ...
Web, there's no definition or rationale anymore for what constitutes a fumble in the NFL. There's a statute called the "Tuck Rule" that essentially allows a quarterback to continuously fake a throw, or be in a position to throw, or be in a position to fake a throw, or think about maybe faking a throw, or think about thinking about maybe faking a throw, and as long as he's behind the scrimmage, he can never be called for fumble. But it's only ever been invoked once, in a playoff game 10 years ago.
There's another version that states the ground can't cause a fumble. Meaning that if the player hits the turf and the ball squirts out, the play is ruled dead and the possessing team keeps the ball where it landed. Unless the player has already broken the plane of the end zone. As soon as that happens, it's a touchdown and the play is dead. That's what the explanation was for the fumble to which you referred in the Pittsburgh/Denver game. There's another version that states once a player's knee is down, the play is dead. The fumble rules are not to be confused with the rules for a pass reception, which if you're playing against the Bears at Soldier Field require you to maintain possession of the ball until you either go to the ground or a funeral director removes it from your cold, dead hands.

Moving on ... The face mask rules were changed a couple of years ago. There used to be two types of penalties - the "incidental" variety (more appropriately "accidental") of a face mask infraction drew a 5-yard penalty, and the "personal foul" variety (yanking and pulling on the face mask in the context of making a tackle) drew a 15-yard penalty. Unless, of course, the player has the the ball. Then he can pretty much yank, pull, fold spindle and mutilate an opposing player's face mask.
The NFL did away with the incidental variety, which was supposed to eliminate discretion on the part of the referees. What's happened in reality is the referees ignore what used to be called an incidental infraction because they don't want to mark off 15 yards when a player accidentally contacts another player's face mask. Unless, of course, the infraction is committed by a player from a certain team from the East Bay area of California against which the NFL holds an institutional bias. Then the player is kicked out of the game and his team is assesed a 15-yard penalty.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (1/10/2012 2:05 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

It's been a while since I paid that much attention to Football & frankly I didn't understand the fumble issue.  Did the rules change about fumbles?  I thought if a guy goes down & the ball spits out that it's a fumble.  It appears there's a lot more to it these days.  That play where the Steelers got to the one yard line & the ball spit out of his arms looked like a fumble to me.

It also looked like the Steelers got away with a lot of "facemask" grabbing.

Why it's funny you should ask (as the rest of the crowd groaned) ...
Web, there's no definition or rationale anymore for what constitutes a fumble in the NFL. There's a statute called the "Tuck Rule" that essentially allows a quarterback to continuously fake a throw, or be in a position to throw, or be in a position to fake a throw, or think about maybe faking a throw, or think about thinking about maybe faking a throw, and as long as he's behind the scrimmage, he can never be called for fumble. But it's only ever been invoked once, in a playoff game 10 years ago.
There's another version that states the ground can't cause a fumble. Meaning that if the player hits the turf and the ball squirts out, the play is ruled dead and the possessing team keeps the ball where it landed. Unless the player has already broken the plane of the end zone. As soon as that happens, it's a touchdown and the play is dead. That's what the explanation was for the fumble to which you referred in the Pittsburgh/Denver game. There's another version that states once a player's knee is down, the play is dead. The fumble rules are not to be confused with the rules for a pass reception, which if you're playing against the Bears at Soldier Field require you to maintain possession of the ball until you either go to the ground or a funeral director removes it from your cold, dead hands.

Moving on ... The face mask rules were changed a couple of years ago. There used to be two types of penalties - the "incidental" variety (more appropriately "accidental") of a face mask infraction drew a 5-yard penalty, and the "personal foul" variety (yanking and pulling on the face mask in the context of making a tackle) drew a 15-yard penalty. Unless, of course, the player has the the ball. Then he can pretty much yank, pull, fold spindle and mutilate an opposing player's face mask.
The NFL did away with the incidental variety, which was supposed to eliminate discretion on the part of the referees. What's happened in reality is the referees ignore what used to be called an incidental infraction because they don't want to mark off 15 yards when a player accidentally contacts another player's face mask. Unless, of course, the infraction is committed by a player from a certain team from the East Bay area of California against which the NFL holds an institutional bias. Then the player is kicked out of the game and his team is assesed a 15-yard penalty.

HA!  Sounds about as clear as the rules for a Balk in baseball!

Anyway - I saw a couple of facemask grabs that didn't get called & they looked intentional.

APRTW wrote:

Speaking of overtime.  I thought there was no sudden death overtime in the playoffs?

Since none of you assholes would help me out I had to look it up.  I guess the reason the Steelers didnt get the ball in OT was because Denver scored a TD.  Had the kicked a FG then they would have got a chance.  I was thinking both teams got the ball no matter what.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Speaking of overtime.  I thought there was no sudden death overtime in the playoffs?

Since none of you assholes would help me out I had to look it up.  I guess the reason the Steelers didnt get the ball in OT was because Denver scored a TD.  Had the kicked a FG then they would have got a chance.  I was thinking both teams got the ball no matter what.

Whoa! I'll cop to being an asshole, but at least I answered the question. So did Fors. Within 15 minutes of you posing the question.
I'll leave it up to someone else to determine whether he's an asshole, but if it's determined he is there's a nice segue into that scene from Spaceballs when Dark Helmet declares "I'm surrounded by assholes!!"

Damnit!  How did I miss both post on it.  WHo is the asshole now?

"Green Bay's penchant for giving up a lot of yards but not a lot of points has to come back to bite them in the ass at some point, right?.
If I'm a Packers' fan, I'd be wary of the Giants this weekend. I'm not saying the Giants are going to win, but I think they have the type of team that can win in Green Bay.
The San Francisco/New Orleans game is an interesting contrast. I suppose it comes down to how well Alex Smith plays. If the 49ers can control the clock, they'll win.
The favorites in the AFC seem like pretty clear-cut winners."

I'll be signing autographs in the lobby between 1-4 p.m.

I also dislike the QB headshot rules. If you rattle his cage? okay. If you turn his helmet sideways? okay fine flag it. But the grazing of the helmet from top down by an open hand trying to deflect a pass? That's not going to cause a concussion, and should NEVER be flagged. You can't tackle high or low on a QB, and the rules for other folks are such that a small CB/safety with hitting power is useless. Get a 6'6 receiver and throw it high. If he gets hit, it's in a "hitting a defenseless player" flag, if he catches it, get down on all 4's and run straight at the defender. He has to figure out how to tackle you without helmet to helmet, which is also 15 yards and ENTIRELY on the shoulders of a defense.

Nobody is taking advantage of the holes in the rules to todays game, but you would be limitlessly successful with Basketball centers as your WR's, and a running back who's 3'11". It's going to happen at some point, and it's indefensible by the NFL without taking 3-5 15 yard penatlies per drive.

All in all, I'm much more drawn to the college game at this point than the pro's, sad to say.

Did you guys hear how badly Tebow was hurt at the beginning of the third quarter? He sustained torn rib cartilage, serious bruises to his chest & right shoulder, plus "bruises" around his lung so bad that they almost had to take him out.  Most people would have been rushed to the hospital.  There was fluid outside of his lung area.  He insisted on staying in & continued to throw through the pain.   They said the tackle that injured him involved as much weight as a baby elephant.  So much for pass protection

artie_fufkin wrote:

"They said the tackle that injured him involved as much weight as a baby elephant."

That must have been when Wilfork tackled him.
He's going to keep getting hurt if the Broncos continue to use him the way he's being used, Web. NFL quarterbacks can't absorb that kind of punishment too long.

LOL - well I think they meant he was pretty much pounced on by 2 or more the size of Wilfork.

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"They said the tackle that injured him involved as much weight as a baby elephant."

That must have been when Wilfork tackled him.
He's going to keep getting hurt if the Broncos continue to use him the way he's being used, Web. NFL quarterbacks can't absorb that kind of punishment too long.

He is fast enough to be usefull but to slow to avoid hits.

Hard to avoid tanks that just blew through your pass protection:-\  He wasn't the only player that lost that game.

"He wasn't the only player that lost that game."

New England scored 45 points, and Tebow wasn't on the field for any of them.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"He wasn't the only player that lost that game."

New England scored 45 points, and Tebow wasn't on the field for any of them.

And if Tebow was an actually NFL QB he might have been able to drive the field and keep his defense from being on the field so much.  I dont dislike Tebow.  The media was all over him and made his story old in a week.  He just isnt going to be very good.  He wont be the QB by the end of next year.  I believe it was Brian Urlacker who when asked about Tebow said that he was a good running back.  I think that sums it up.

"And if Tebow was an actually NFL QB he might have been able to drive the field and keep his defense from being on the field so much."

I understand what you're saying, but it's hard to pin a 35-point loss on the quarterback. It's like saying it was Dan Marino's fault every time the Dolphins lost a 51-45 game because he drove the team down the field too quickly and didn't give his defense enough time to rest.