Big Game Gabe is both a hacky nickname and one that an announcer could comically mispronounce.
I guess one reason is that one of the reasons you don’t want to make catches too easy is you don’t want fumbles to be too easy. But an offensive player cannot fumble in the end zone, so you don’t have that concern.Why would a catch in the end zone be different than a catch in the field of play? Does this “millisecond” rule apply to interceptions by the defense in the end zone?
Makes sense. Again, I am assuming that the NFL likes any form of controversy that doesn't involve any current allegations of domestic violence.I also think there’s an element - obviously among some hardcore fans who know the rules - of not liking the rule and ascribing confusion to where there is really disagreement with the rule.
Eh, it'd be a 15 yard penalty, so I'm good with no call. Inconsequential (the guy caught it) and it was just a little bump.Pretty simple, you can’t intentionally touch someone making a fair catch?
They’re not kneeling Buffalo has 3 TOPet peeve and I see it all the time in pro and college…….
The fair catch at end of the half when you’re simply going to kneel. What is the upside? We know the downside especially with snow coming down in a guys face and at least a damp ball.
Buffalo has 3 timeouts, you don’t want to be down inside the 3.Pet peeve and I see it all the time in pro and college…….
The fair catch at end of the half when you’re simply going to kneel. What is the upside? We know the downside especially with snow coming down in a guys face and at least a damp ball.
Not having the ball take a funny bounce off an unaware player.What is the upside?
I'm not saying it should apply now, just if I were to rewrite the rule book that would be my definition. Yes, it can apply both ways. But actually I would probably change the sideline rule as well to not need to possess after hitting the ground, to make things consistent. In the spirit of all the other rule changes or emphasis of rules benefit the offense, but this hasn't.Why would a catch in the end zone be different than a catch in the field of play? Does this “millisecond” rule apply to interceptions by the defense in the end zone?
He didn’t interfere though. It was a touch following the catch…..not physical contact.Pretty simple, you can’t intentionally touch someone making a fair catch?
I would much rather do this. I think the catch rule is fine and it’s an easy line to draw (and you always need to draw a line). But replay screws everything up.I would like to see what would happen if the replay system only allowed full-speed replay reviews at multiple angles. I feel like the big issue is we're slowing down a super-fast game into a microscopic replay millisecond-by-millisecond. If it's inconclusive, it's inconclusive and we move on.
What do you think about eliminating the standard of review that favors the call on the field? It honestly doesn’t seem to solve any problems, and it forces fans and the actual reviewers to not only try to apply the rules to the play but also apply a rebuttable presumption to the call on the field. And the call on the field might be a seat of the pants determination anyways because the game moves so fast and the officials can’t possibly see everything well.I would much rather do this. I think the catch rule is fine and it’s an easy line to draw (and you always need to draw a line). But replay screws everything up.
I would like to see what would happen if the replay system only allowed full-speed replay reviews at multiple angles. I feel like the big issue is we're slowing down a super-fast game into a microscopic replay millisecond-by-millisecond. If it's inconclusive, it's inconclusive and we move on.
I agree with this. But I would also like there to be a time limit on how long his reviews can go. If you can’t get it fixed in 90 seconds, they call the field stands.I would much rather do this. I think the catch rule is fine and it’s an easy line to draw (and you always need to draw a line). But replay screws everything up.
Especially because we now have principles, because of replay, where they make certain calls on the field on purpose. Like they call close plays fumbles to let it play out.What do you think about eliminating the standard of review that favors the call on the field? It honestly doesn’t seem to solve any problems, and it forces fans and the actual reviewers to not only try to apply the rules to the play but also apply a rebuttable presumption to the call on the field. And the call on the field might be a seat of the pants determination anyways because the game moves so fast and the officials can’t possibly see everything well.
If you don’t have a returner back there no player would be in that position which is my point.Not having the ball take a funny bounce off an unaware player.
Yeah I corrected self I thought they had 2.They’re not kneeling Buffalo has 3 TO
Any Buffalo transplant in this area that shops there must be legally required to wear Bills gear. And they have Josh Allen cereal. Josh Allen salsa..Is Wegmans a big hangout for Bills Mafia? Asking for a fellow poster.
No more Flutie Flakes?Any Buffalo transplant in this area that shops there must be legally required to wear Bills gear. And they have Josh Allen cereal. Josh Allen salsa..
Preventing the very real risk of a downed ball inside your own 5 is important because that would make your playcalling more conservative and therefore more likely to end up in a punt that sets BUF up near midfield. A downed punt in really adverse field position is a higher risk than your trusted PR muffing the ball.If you don’t have a returner back there no player would be in that position which is my point.
Start a thread for ranking all the best movies with NFL QBs in them?I hope 80 for Brady wins best picture
Some guys don't like to wear them because if they get wet it can make you even colder.Is there any practical reason why guys play these conditions in short sleeves or is it just dumb macho bullshit?