• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Eagles vs. Vikings

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
Got a link?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
no, read the rules. Hands don't count.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
Got a link?
last receiver from Philly, laying on the ground clearly did not get 2 feet in before touching out of bounds.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
Got a link?
last receiver from Philly, laying on the ground clearly did not get 2 feet in before touching out of bounds.
He didn't go out of bounds then come back in. An offensive player can't re-establish themselves at all once they go out of bounds.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
Got a link?
last receiver from Philly, laying on the ground clearly did not get 2 feet in before touching out of bounds.
He didn't go out of bounds then come back in. An offensive player can't re-establish themselves at all once they go out of bounds.
Did he get two feet down before he rolled out of bounds?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Nitemare
A challenge. He clearly was not out of bounds when he first touched the ball, but only had one foot down in bounds. Anyone know the rules on this?
Bullsh_t!!!

He had a foot and his fingers clearly touched the ground before touching the ball. Refs officially suck
When you go out of bounds, you need to re-establish yourself on the field of play before making a play. He clearly did not get his other foot inbounds (this is what they mean by re-establishing), so the ruling on the field was overturned.
2 points of reference. not necessarily feet. I rest my case, all officials suck
Got a link?
last receiver from Philly, laying on the ground clearly did not get 2 feet in before touching out of bounds.
He didn't go out of bounds then come back in. An offensive player can't re-establish themselves at all once they go out of bounds.
Did he get two feet down before he rolled out of bounds?
He didn't roll at all. It's a completely different rule for the Eagles receiver, the situations have nothing to do with each other. He had control of the ball, hit the ground, and had control of the ball after hitting the ground. It was a catch.

EDIT: Wait, I think we're talking about two different plays here. My bad. I thought you had moved on to the play after that and was questioning it.

As for the receiver that fumbled, he did have two feet down before he rolled out of bounds. Obviously he did, because he tripped himself up which called him to fall and fumble.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: tennesota
Originally posted by: BigJ
Bad play calling by the Eagles right there.

But not as bad as the Vikes "fake field goal" attempt.
It was not a bad play call at all by the Vikes. If Moss pulls his head out of his ass, that's a touchdown.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: tennesota
Originally posted by: BigJ
Bad play calling by the Eagles right there.

But not as bad as the Vikes "fake field goal" attempt.
It was not a bad play call at all by the Vikes. If Moss pulls his head out of his ass, that's a touchdown.
Doubt if he could pull it out. I imagine that fro would lock it in...


Second half
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
that better be an incomplete pass.

If not then they need to strip the patriots superbowl for their playoff game against oakland years back.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: BigJ
That was a fumble, Vikings got a break.
incomplete pass. that whole arm moving forward BS.
In the replay, his arm wasn't moving forward at all, it was stripped going back. Vikings got a huge break on that because the ref blew the whistle and ruled it incomplete.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: BigJ
That was a fumble, Vikings got a break.
incomplete pass. that whole arm moving forward BS.
In the replay, his arm wasn't moving forward at all, it was stripped going back. Vikings got a huge break on that because the ref blew the whistle and ruled it incomplete.
oh I agree. I just think its BS. It should be a fumble, but ever since that patriots/raiders playoff in the snow they let QBs get away with what "should" be a fumble and call it an incomplete pass.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY