Football Pool VII

[bookworm]

CONGRATULATIONS TO TOP FOR WINNING WEEK 4's FOOTBALL POOL!!!!

The results are as follows:
Top - 12 correct
bookworm - 11 correct
AE - 10 correct
KF - 8 correct


Cumulative Pool standings:
Top - 45
bookworm - 41
AE - 39
KF - 34

[The Top Crusader]

Yay me!

Oh and while I'm here, Bengals for Thursday night.

[American Eagle]

Oh and while I'm here, Bengals for Thursday night.

You're just voting for your own team.

Week 9

Cleveland vs. Cincinnati

[The Top Crusader]

Oh and while I'm here, Bengals for Thursday night.

You're just voting for your own team.

Week 9

Cleveland vs. Cincinnati

Bengals are traditionally bad in prime time and now they've got three in a row, thanks to the NFL flexing Bengals @ Cardinals. >_> Conceivably should win the first two at least, but I wouldn't be at all shocked if they dropped a game to the Browns. Browns are starting Manziel apparently, and that went pretty well for the Bengals last time, so hopefully the same will happen again. It seems like even when the Bengals are having a good year, they'll split their games against the Browns, even when the Browns are their traditional horrible self.

[bookworm]

Bengals

GB
BUF
MIN
NE
NO
NYJ
PIT
ATL
NYG
DEN
PHI
SD

[Knight Fisher]

MIA vs BUF
JAX vs NYJ
GB vs CAR
STL vs MIN
WAS vs Brady
TEN vs NO
OAK vs PIT
NYG vs TB
ATL vs SF
DEN vs IND (Didn't have it highlighted meant to pick the Broncos.)
PHI vs DAL
DA BEARS

[American Eagle]

Week 9

CLE vs. CIN
MIA vs BUF
JAX vs NYJ
GB vs CAR
STL vs MIN
WAS vs NE
TEN vs NO
OAK vs PIT
NYG vs TB
ATL vs SF
DEN vs IND
PHI vs DAL
CHI vs. SD

[The Top Crusader]

CLE vs. CIN
MIA vs BUF
JAX vs NYJ
GB vs CAR
STL vs MIN
WAS vs NE
TEN vs NO
OAK vs PIT
NYG vs TB
ATL vs SF
DEN vs IND
PHI vs DAL
CHI vs. SD

-- 12 Nov 2015 01:11 pm --

btw, NY Jets for Thursday night

[bookworm]

Jets

BAL
GB
PHI
STL
PIT
DAL
CAR
NO
MIN
DEN
NYG
SEA
CIN

[American Eagle]

I haven't seen the score and I'm not really sure if this is going to count for anything, but I'll say whoever is playing against the Jets.

[Knight Fisher]

JAX vs BAL
CLE vs PIT
CAR vs TEN
Da Bears
DAL vs TB
DET vs GB
MIA vs PHI
NO vs WAS
MIN vs OAK
KC vs DEN
NE vs NYG
ARI vs SEA

Monday
HOU vs CIN

[American Eagle]

Week 10

BUF vs NYJ (if it counts)
JAX vs BAL
CLE vs PIT
CAR vs TEN
CHI vs STL
DAL vs TB
DET vs GB
MIA vs PHI
NO vs WAS
MIN vs OAK
KC vs DEN
NE vs NYG
ARI vs SEA

Monday
HOU vs CIN

[The Top Crusader]

JAX vs BAL
CLE vs PIT
CAR vs TEN
CHI vs STL
DAL vs TB
DET vs GB
MIA vs PHI
NO vs WAS
MIN vs OAK
KC vs DEN
NE vs NYG (although I really hope I'm wrong...)
ARI vs SEA

Monday
HOU vs CIN

[Knight Fisher]

That ending was truly beautiful AE.

[American Eagle]

KF, yes! First win at Green Bay in 24 years.

NE vs NYG (although I really hope I'm wrong...)

At least you picked correctly.

[bookworm]

I am so dejected at the ending of Patriots/Giants I can't even formulate a proper Referee Rant right now, so suffice it to say the call was wrong and the Giants should have won that game. That was a touchdown.

The explanation given for saying it was incomplete was that because the ball was knocked out just as he came down, before he could "become a runner", he didn't complete the process and therefore it's a dropped pass. That would actually be correct, if this had happened in the field of play; but the key here is that this play was in the endzone. We all know, or did before today at least, that in the endzone different criteria apply. As soon as something happens across the goal line that constitutes possession the play is immediately over and results in a score. That is what happened here. He had the ball clearly in possession, one foot hit down, the other hit down, play is over at that moment and it's a score. There is no requirement to "become a runner" because you don't run in the endzone!

Again, had this been a throw on the field, this would indeed be incomplete. The second foot coming down would not end the play, he would need to subsequently turn and become a runner to advance toward the endzone, and because the ball was knocked out as he did that it's incomplete. But, in the endzone, two feet down is the end of the play.

[Knight Fisher]

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/ ... 4321866754 I'd disagree.

[bookworm]

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/ ... 4321866754 I'd disagree.

With me, or with the video? Could be read both ways.

The video is just repeating the explanation which I already said doesn't apply on this play. 'He did have control, but didn't maintain it long enough to become a runner.' You don't become a runner in the endzone; once you're across the goal line anything that constitutes possession of the ball ends the play. For a running play, it means as soon as the ball crosses the plain the play is over, we hear that one all the time. For a pass it means as soon as two feet touch down with possession the play is over, which is what happened here.

Now, there is still the requirement to maintain possession on plays which is applies, such as a catch made going to the ground. In that case even if both feet tap, if the ball comes out later yes it's incomplete. But on this play he's just standing there, so the only length of time he needs to hold on is until both feet come down, which he does. He makes the catch, touches down, then the ball is knocked out, but it doesn't matter, the play is over by then.

Saying the reason this was incomplete was because he didn't turn to become a runner is easily seen to be nonsense if you simply apply it to an uncontested catch. Under this logic consider a receiver who is in the endzone facing the field when he jumps up to catch a pass. He comes down with it, and spikes the ball in celebration. By this explanation, that would not be a catch because he didn't turn around toward the back of the endzone before 'losing' possession. Clearly that notion is ludicrous, but it is the same thing that happened here. The only difference is this play had a defender involved. What actually happened on the play, as far as what the referee's claim they were examining, is the same.

To be clear, what I'm upset about here is the incorrect analysis of why the call was reversed to incomplete, not necessarily the result. If they had ruled that because the ball was knocked out so close to the second foot touching down it was a so called bang-bang play, and therefore they decided it's incomplete because the ball was coming lose before the foot touched that's one thing. I would still dispute it because being that incredibly close it shouldn't be indisputable enough to overturn the call on the field, which was touchdown, but at least I understood their reasoning. But instead the reasoning given was the nonsense about holding on long enough to become a runner and that simply just does not apply to this play. It just doesn't. For as long as I've been watching football it has been made clear that across the goal line, once you have possession the play is dead.

[American Eagle]

I remember being outraged at that type of call a few years back with Calvin Johnson.

[bookworm]

I remember being outraged at that type of call a few years back with Calvin Johnson.

Except that was the case where it was a question of maintaining possession while going to the ground. That's an entirely different category which has its own ridiculousness, but at least has some bearing. (Meaning there are legitimate instances where you have to take losing possession while falling into account, the debate is on how far after the catch it should be extended.) I won't even go into that here.

For the record though, the Calvin Johnson catch was a touchdown. Referees got that one blatantly wrong, even under the exasperating 'maintain possession through the process' criteria.