Super Bowl LVII - First ever Super Bowl to feature two African American Quarterbacks.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I have zero issue with the call. It was soft, yes. But a penalty is a penalty. And I do believe that the Chiefs were f**ked out of a fumble recovery touchdown earlier in the game, so I would say it more than evened out.

That was a fairly obvious incomplete pass by the rules of the game. They just let em play out, which is what they are taught to do.

Really? Because after he caught it, he turned his body upfield and took 1 step before he was hit. Is that not a football move? Just because it happened really really fast doesnt mean a football move wasnt made.

I actually think by the rules of the game, it was a completely blown call. The ONLY reason I think the refs said it wasnt was because of how fast the football move was made....which of course, is no where in the rules.

If you freeze frame the play, he 'caught' with 9:27 on the gameclock, the ball is out still with 9:27 on the gameclock, that's being in contact with the ball for a fractional second. I believe Pereira on the broadcast mentioned it was incomplete pass he is probably the best network rules expert in the game today, imo. Part of the rulebook as you mention is 'football move' which is subjective, but timing is an issue, the rulebook also elaborates some things that can constitute a football move, like a 3rd step. He needed more time in possession of the ball prior to ball out. You'd have to find me a fumble at any point in recent league history with these rules, where the ball is possessed that quick and ruled a fumble.

Originally posted by boast:

the same vid shows hands to the face on Brown against Sweat but the refs chose not to call that one. just an example of how you can find a penalty on practically any play.

NFL Films gets the perfect shot of the hold on Juju Smith-Schuster. #Chiefs pic.twitter.com/eB3CL0paW1

— Nick Jacobs (@Jacobs71) February 15, 2023

Now AS SOON as he latches on, stop the vid for a few seconds then start it again. Makes it look way worse lol. That .5 seconds face mask didn't affect he play and bradberrys fist being closed for .5 seconds didn't affect the play. One was a good no call, one ruined the game

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I have zero issue with the call. It was soft, yes. But a penalty is a penalty. And I do believe that the Chiefs were f**ked out of a fumble recovery touchdown earlier in the game, so I would say it more than evened out.

That was a fairly obvious incomplete pass by the rules of the game. They just let em play out, which is what they are taught to do.

Really? Because after he caught it, he turned his body upfield and took 1 step before he was hit. Is that not a football move? Just because it happened really really fast doesnt mean a football move wasnt made.

I actually think by the rules of the game, it was a completely blown call. The ONLY reason I think the refs said it wasnt was because of how fast the football move was made....which of course, is no where in the rules.

Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I have zero issue with the call. It was soft, yes. But a penalty is a penalty. And I do believe that the Chiefs were f**ked out of a fumble recovery touchdown earlier in the game, so I would say it more than evened out.

That was a fairly obvious incomplete pass by the rules of the game. They just let em play out, which is what they are taught to do.

Really? Because after he caught it, he turned his body upfield and took 1 step before he was hit. Is that not a football move? Just because it happened really really fast doesnt mean a football move wasnt made.

I actually think by the rules of the game, it was a completely blown call. The ONLY reason I think the refs said it wasnt was because of how fast the football move was made....which of course, is no where in the rules.

Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

It's one of those calls that shouldn't exist in the rules. Get rid of that football move stuff. If a guy catches the ball and has it secured as he did and then fumbles when hit, it should be a fumble. If he takes one step or two shouldn't matter. He clearly had the ball secured. DBs already have a hard enough time defending receivers. Now they're getting penalized for timing a hit perfectly.

Originally posted by boast:
yeah consistency is the issue not the actual foul. so no "the argument" isn't over. holding happens in almost every play. when the refs choose to enforce it is the problem.

100% this.....

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I have zero issue with the call. It was soft, yes. But a penalty is a penalty. And I do believe that the Chiefs were f**ked out of a fumble recovery touchdown earlier in the game, so I would say it more than evened out.

That was a fairly obvious incomplete pass by the rules of the game. They just let em play out, which is what they are taught to do.

Really? Because after he caught it, he turned his body upfield and took 1 step before he was hit. Is that not a football move? Just because it happened really really fast doesnt mean a football move wasnt made.

I actually think by the rules of the game, it was a completely blown call. The ONLY reason I think the refs said it wasnt was because of how fast the football move was made....which of course, is no where in the rules.

If you freeze frame the play, he 'caught' with 9:27 on the gameclock, the ball is out still with 9:27 on the gameclock, that's being in contact with the ball for a fractional second. I believe Pereira on the broadcast mentioned it was incomplete pass he is probably the best network rules expert in the game today, imo. Part of the rulebook as you mention is 'football move' which is subjective, but timing is an issue, the rulebook also elaborates some things that can constitute a football move, like a 3rd step. He needed more time in possession of the ball prior to ball out. You'd have to find me a fumble at any point in recent league history with these rules, where the ball is possessed that quick and ruled a fumble.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. The rulebook states a 3rd step is a football move....well....he did a 3rd step as well as turn his body up field. To me, thats TWO football moves. You say that timing is an issue, but how can you apply timing as a factor to a rule that doesnt mention timing? And I realize that is exactly what the referees did here....I just think its wrong. The rules dont say a thing about timing, so it really shouldnt matter. The receiver caught the ball, turned upfield and took 1 additional step. Those are football moves, period.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by lamontb:
Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

Turning his body upfield and taking an additional step after catching the ball arent football moves? What would constitute a football move then?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This seems a bit contradictory to me. The rulebook states a 3rd step is a football move....well....he did a 3rd step as well as turn his body up field.

he didn't. i mean there is a third step but the hit is already applied and ball is already out

but how can you apply timing as a factor to a rule that doesnt mention timing?

the rule mentions timing. here is the rule: ball carrier needs to satisfy both A) secure control of the ball (think complete process of catch) and B) do so inbounds with two feet and once you do A & B you need to do C) which is performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

The italicized is straight from the NFL rules. Long enough to do so is key here. I posted above, catch begins and ends at the same second of gameclock he had a fractional second to do A, B and C.. which is not enough time.

NFL rules also include this: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I have zero issue with the call. It was soft, yes. But a penalty is a penalty. And I do believe that the Chiefs were f**ked out of a fumble recovery touchdown earlier in the game, so I would say it more than evened out.

That was a fairly obvious incomplete pass by the rules of the game. They just let em play out, which is what they are taught to do.

Really? Because after he caught it, he turned his body upfield and took 1 step before he was hit. Is that not a football move? Just because it happened really really fast doesnt mean a football move wasnt made.

I actually think by the rules of the game, it was a completely blown call. The ONLY reason I think the refs said it wasnt was because of how fast the football move was made....which of course, is no where in the rules.

Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

It's one of those calls that shouldn't exist in the rules. Get rid of that football move stuff. If a guy catches the ball and has it secured as he did and then fumbles when hit, it should be a fumble. If he takes one step or two shouldn't matter. He clearly had the ball secured. DBs already have a hard enough time defending receivers. Now they're getting penalized for timing a hit perfectly.

This. So if he catches and secures the ball, but does not take any steps at all, to me, that's a fumble. Is there now going to be a time requirement?

I also want the rule to change when running the ball. I don't care if he's stopped, If the ball carrier is attempting to gain yards, the play should still be live. If he's eligible to gain yards, then he should be eligible to lose possession. This exact scenario came into play during the Niners-Giants game when Brandon Jacobs FUMBLED the ball and Niners recovered, but the refs said forward progress stopped, giving the ball back to the giants.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by lamontb:
Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

Turning his body upfield and taking an additional step after catching the ball arent football moves? What would constitute a football move then?

This conversation reminds me of Coach Knight pondering what is a game face?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This seems a bit contradictory to me. The rulebook states a 3rd step is a football move....well....he did a 3rd step as well as turn his body up field.

he didn't. i mean there is a third step but the hit is already applied and ball is already out

but how can you apply timing as a factor to a rule that doesnt mention timing?

the rule mentions timing. here is the rule: ball carrier needs to satisfy both A) secure control of the ball (think complete process of catch) and B) do so inbounds with two feet and once you do A & B you need to do C) which is performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

The italicized is straight from the NFL rules. Long enough to do so is key here. I posted above, catch begins and ends at the same second of gameclock he had a fractional second to do A, B and C.. which is not enough time.

NFL rules also include this: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

No it isnt. That is a misinterpretation of what its saying. It is saying the receiver either needs to make a football move OR he needs to have the ball long enough to make a football move.

Tom Tolbert made a comment on KNBR that if a player catches the ball and stands still like a statue for 2 seconds and the ball is then stripped, he technically didnt make a football move. While he was joking around, the "or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so" is the rule's way of countering Tolbert's silly idea.

Making a football move has absolutely nothing to do with time. A football move (actually two) was made during this play, regardless if the football move happened in a split second or in 5 seconds.

Only the refs know the rules, they are also the only ones who can change the rules during the game under the guise of "Judgement Call".

"Judgement calls" is the best thing ever created for Corporate Sponsors, Casinos, and online gambling sites. Billions of dollars at stake.

Just imagine how much money Progressive lost on the Baker Mayfield marketing campaign (living at the stadium).



State Farm chose the right guy and paid more for their outcome LOL.

Originally posted by ltrain:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by lamontb:
Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

Turning his body upfield and taking an additional step after catching the ball arent football moves? What would constitute a football move then?

This conversation reminds me of Coach Knight pondering what is a game face?

Classic clip. The smile kills me.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I have zero issue with the call. It was soft, yes. But a penalty is a penalty. And I do believe that the Chiefs were f**ked out of a fumble recovery touchdown earlier in the game, so I would say it more than evened out.

That was a fairly obvious incomplete pass by the rules of the game. They just let em play out, which is what they are taught to do.

Really? Because after he caught it, he turned his body upfield and took 1 step before he was hit. Is that not a football move? Just because it happened really really fast doesnt mean a football move wasnt made.

I actually think by the rules of the game, it was a completely blown call. The ONLY reason I think the refs said it wasnt was because of how fast the football move was made....which of course, is no where in the rules.

Agree with 49er on this. He never made a football move. Fairly obvious to me too.

It's one of those calls that shouldn't exist in the rules. Get rid of that football move stuff. If a guy catches the ball and has it secured as he did and then fumbles when hit, it should be a fumble. If he takes one step or two shouldn't matter. He clearly had the ball secured. DBs already have a hard enough time defending receivers. Now they're getting penalized for timing a hit perfectly.

This. So if he catches and secures the ball, but does not take any steps at all, to me, that's a fumble. Is there now going to be a time requirement?

There has always been a time requirement. I am not advocating, just explaining what the rules are as a matter of fact. If you catch and stand there for 10 seconds, it's a fumble. If you catch and have the ball for 0.2 seconds or so, it's an incomplete pass. That's the way this has always worked folks. NFL refers to this as completing the process of the catch and yes takes time. Pretty sure ppl would complain if someone had the ball in their hands for .2 seconds then bobbled and dropped it, and it was ruled a fumble. Your key phrase here is secure the ball, does it not take time to do so?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
No it isnt. That is a misinterpretation of what its saying. It is saying the receiver either needs to make a football move OR he needs to have the ball long enough to make a football move.

Tom Tolbert made a comment on KNBR that if a player catches the ball and stands still like a statue for 2 seconds and the ball is then stripped, he technically didnt make a football move. While he was joking around, the "or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so" is the rule's way of countering Tolbert's silly idea.

Making a football move has absolutely nothing to do with time. A football move (actually two) was made during this play, regardless if the football move happened in a split second or in 5 seconds.

Football moves take time. We can agree to disagree here. Any move takes time. He had the ball for a fractional second. Not one second came off the gameclock.