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

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

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.

Agree to disagree on something you are misinterpreting. LOL ok.

The rule is about making a football move. According to how football moves are explained, the receiver made TWO of them on this play. You are missing the OR in the rule. Its football move OR the time needed to make one. The second part of this rule (the time to make one), has absolutely no bearing on this play because he already completed the first part of the rule.

Are you really not getting this? I promise you a fast WR takes exponentially less time to make a football move than say an offensive lineman. Time has never ever been a part of what a football move is.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
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?

The ball was secured. Period.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
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?

The ball was secured. Period.

from Sporting News on the play:

Sanders' non-catch was probably the least controversial of the three, but it also provided the biggest swing. It came on a swing pass in the second half with the Eagles winning 24-21.

Sanders caught the ball and got two feet down in bounds before he was lit up by L'Jarius Sneed. The ball was scooped up by Nick Bolton and returned for an apparent touchdown.

However, the play was overturned after review. Why? Because Sanders didn't have enough time to make an act common to the game before he was tackled.

As a result, the pass was ruled incomplete; that was deemed a correct call by Fox's officiating expert Mike Pereira. And while Chiefs fans may not have been happy with the ruling, they can certainly understand it.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Also, from the video posted by blizzuntz, it's pretty clear and obvious the hold did in fact affect the WRs motion. This argument is over. It was a foul, and it affected the route. Holding is not dependent on the pass being catchable. There is no debate about whether or not that was a foul.

.
.
.
EDIT--the referenced video:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

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

— Nick Jacobs (@Jacobs71) February 15, 2023

Bad call. There is a reason they have to stop the video at the very moment he closes fist. Why do they feel the need to do that? Why try to make it look bad if it actually was bad? He's already opening his hand when they start the video back up lol. If you think .5 seconds of a closed fist is enough to end a SB, then you want this sport to go to trash.

Also the half second hands to face/face mask in the background on sweat needs to be called here if we want every little irrelevant technicality called in these situations

Impeding the progress of the WR is irrelevant to whether or not defensive holding is committed.
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defensive-holding/

The call was the right call. The only reasonable arguments is that the refs should have let the foul slide because of the timing. Like they did to Nick Bosa in 2019.

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

Seeing a jersey grab is much easier than one second of a hand going to the face.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

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

Seeing a jersey grab is much easier than one second of a hand going to the face.

If you can see it on your couch, zoomed in , on Slo mo, you can see the fouls from anywhere

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

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

Seeing a jersey grab is much easier than one second of a hand going to the face.

Seeing anything is much easier when you're looking for it.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Impeding the progress of the WR is irrelevant to whether or not defensive holding is committed.
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defensive-holding/

The call was the right call. The only reasonable arguments is that the refs should have let the foul slide because of the timing. Like they did to Nick Bosa in 2019.

This is exactly what we've been saying lol. You don't call THAT penalty at that time. In the biggest moments, you need something like the Saints Rams play to throw a flag. It has to be CLEAR that the play was altered to just go ahead and call the season like that.

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

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

Seeing a jersey grab is much easier than one second of a hand going to the face.

Seeing anything is much easier when you're looking for it.

What's hilarious is nobody would give a f**k about this if it wasn't called. Nobody would have even looked twice at that route. Nobody cares that Crabtree or Miller were held. Nobody cares that Bosa was held. Hell, nobody cares that there was a face mask on Sweat on the same exact play lmao. Calling penalties like that at that time does nothing but take away from the game. It makes the product worse

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

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

Seeing a jersey grab is much easier than one second of a hand going to the face.

Seeing anything is much easier when you're looking for it.

What's hilarious is nobody would give a f**k about this if it wasn't called. Nobody would have even looked twice at that route. Nobody cares that Crabtree or Miller were held. Nobody cares that Bosa was held. Hell, nobody cares that there was a face mask on Sweat on the same exact play lmao. Calling penalties like that at that time does nothing but take away from the game. It makes the product worse

Agreed, consistency is clearly lacking.... against certain teams.

You guys still arguing this ?

Was it the right call ? By the book, YES. But for the refs to decide a game in that moment is absolutely wrong. It should be called if it is blatant and obvious. The fact that we need 25 different camera angles to either confirm or reject or suspicions shows that it was absolutely unnecessary.

of course the refs get away with it bc they'll just swear by the rule book, and no one argue against the "book" in a court of law.

But we've seen their f**k ups too often in big moments. Lack of consistency is a killer for a sport that is making billions of dollars annually…

Originally posted by DrEll:
You guys still arguing this ?

Was it the right call ? By the book, YES. But for the refs to decide a game in that moment is absolutely wrong. It should be called if it is blatant and obvious. The fact that we need 25 different camera angles to either confirm or reject or suspicions shows that it was absolutely unnecessary.

of course the refs get away with it bc they'll just swear by the rule book, and no one argue against the "book" in a court of law.

But we've seen their f**k ups too often in big moments. Lack of consistency is a killer for a sport that is making billions of dollars annually…

The refs knew what they were doing.

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by DrEll:
You guys still arguing this ?

Was it the right call ? By the book, YES. But for the refs to decide a game in that moment is absolutely wrong. It should be called if it is blatant and obvious. The fact that we need 25 different camera angles to either confirm or reject or suspicions shows that it was absolutely unnecessary.

of course the refs get away with it bc they'll just swear by the rule book, and no one argue against the "book" in a court of law.

But we've seen their f**k ups too often in big moments. Lack of consistency is a killer for a sport that is making billions of dollars annually…

The refs knew what they were doing.

Refs are always going to make calls that one side or the other disagrees with. They're human and have to make the calls in a split second when they may or may not have a perfect view. They can't call every foul they see or the games would take over 4 hours to play. They have to use some judgement. I will never believe that they favor certain teams and make calls because the league wants a team to win.

This is a multi billion dollar enterprise and if it ever got out that they were intentionally trying to help certain teams they would be in deep trouble.

Originally posted by DrEll:
You guys still arguing this ?

Was it the right call ? By the book, YES. But for the refs to decide a game in that moment is absolutely wrong. It should be called if it is blatant and obvious. The fact that we need 25 different camera angles to either confirm or reject or suspicions shows that it was absolutely unnecessary.

of course the refs get away with it bc they'll just swear by the rule book, and no one argue against the "book" in a court of law.

But we've seen their f**k ups too often in big moments. Lack of consistency is a killer for a sport that is making billions of dollars annually…

If we had 25 different angles immediately Devonta Smith doesnt catch that ball and its a turnover on downs on the first drive.

Originally posted by Stanley:

Originally posted by DrEll:
You guys still arguing this ?

Was it the right call ? By the book, YES. But for the refs to decide a game in that moment is absolutely wrong. It should be called if it is blatant and obvious. The fact that we need 25 different camera angles to either confirm or reject or suspicions shows that it was absolutely unnecessary.

of course the refs get away with it bc they'll just swear by the rule book, and no one argue against the "book" in a court of law.

But we've seen their f**k ups too often in big moments. Lack of consistency is a killer for a sport that is making billions of dollars annually…

If we had 25 different angles immediately Devonta Smith doesnt catch that ball and its a turnover on downs on the first drive.

the issue on that one, Smith was moving so fast and they got the play off so fast, we didn't have time to see the angles.. good on them for having a concept for that exact situation. smart.