Soldato
To be fair, there have been many many seasons where the NFC East has not been easy... It's our turn for an easier ride 
NFL 2016 Season
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Soldato
Soldato
i see the ryan brothers are teaming up in buffalo, sorry buffalo fans 
Soldato
Yes it was the 1st time all 4 road teams won. I can't see it happening next week though. I think the Steelers are going to struggle massively if 7 and 84 are out.
Soldato
The ball didn't move as it was pinned against the back of His leg. Catch of the Season for Me.
I was more surprised as to why the Bengals didn't get called for unsportsmanlike conduct after the interception. Half of the Team ran down the tunnel.
Soldato
Fairly sure it was moving...
His right foot leaves the ground and I don't believe it's in his hand at that point. Personally I would say only his left foot was in... at best. He only really clamps on to it as his left comes off the ground too... Honestly it baffles me this was given. Am I missing something?
Having said that, he deserves it for a great catch
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
Fairly sure it was moving...
His right foot leaves the ground and I don't believe it's in his hand at that point. Personally I would say only his left foot was in... at best. He only really clamps on to it as his left comes off the ground too... Honestly it baffles me this was given. Am I missing something?
Having said that, he deserves it for a great catch
The catch rule is a bit convoluted and needs more updating to make it more straightforward, but here's the link to the rules regarding a catch:
http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook/#rule8
Essentially, the important point here is:
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
- secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
- touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
- maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
You're right though, it's a really unclear rule that needs more work done to it. This article shows how unclear and inconsistent the rule is:
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/20/9746130/nfl-catch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees
Soldato
In almost every other call I've seen, when the ball has moved that much, in that it's not actually held in the hand, after feet have left the turf, it's not a catch.
Soldato
same here, i might have missed it but normally for a catch they have to have control and either both feet in or some part of their body down in the field of play for it to count, in that catch it goes from 2 hands to behind the leg and it didn't look to me like he had both feet in after the move to it being secured behind his leg.
Soldato
Okay, I'm glad I'm not going crazy then
Soldato
Soldato
kronke's got his wish, rams are moving to LA 
.
just stinks all round, makes no sense, there are been teams there before and they've all moved on.
.just stinks all round, makes no sense, there are been teams there before and they've all moved on
.
Associate
I was a little surprised the Rams got 30 out of 32 votes. The Chargers and Raiders both thought they had enough votes to block the Rams.
It should just be 1 team moving to LA though. I don't understand why the NFL is giving the Chargers a year to make a deal on ground sharing and if that doesn't work out the Raiders get a shot.
It should just be 1 team moving to LA though. I don't understand why the NFL is giving the Chargers a year to make a deal on ground sharing and if that doesn't work out the Raiders get a shot.
Soldato
same here i thought it was a close thing between the rams and chargers.
no idea why they think 2 teams will work in LA when its had trouble keeping 1
as for the ground share, i thought the plan was for the chargers and raiders to share, so that would have made more sense than the rams ?
just found this and it makes even less sense to have more sports teams in LA :
The Los Angeles metropolitan area already has:
2 NBA teams: Lakers and Clippers;
2 NHL teams: Kings and Anaheim Ducks;
2 MLB teams: Dodgers and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim;
And 1 MLS team: Galaxy (with Los Angeles FC starting in 2017).
Last edited:
Forgot about this thread steelers fan. Looks like with a banged up Ben no ab and deangelo Broncos should easily progress. I'm hoping Peyton has a terrible game otherwise it's goodnight. Not overly disappointed if we do lose as our secondary is still awful so would eventually get lit up.
Associate
same here i thought it was a close thing between the rams and chargers.
no idea why they think 2 teams will work in LA when its had trouble keeping 1
as for the ground share, i thought the plan was for the chargers and raiders to share, so that would have made more sense than the rams ?
just found this and it makes even less sense to have more sports teams in LA :
The Los Angeles metropolitan area already has:
2 NBA teams: Lakers and Clippers;
2 NHL teams: Kings and Anaheim Ducks;
2 MLB teams: Dodgers and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim;
And 1 MLS team: Galaxy (with Los Angeles FC starting in 2017).
why does it make less sense?
LA is the 2nd largest city in the US
lets look at the New York
NFL: Giants, Jets
NHL: Rangers, Islander, Devils (if you want to include new jersey)
NBA: Knicks, Nets
MLB: Mets, Yankees
MLS: City, Red Bull.
so pretty much the same amount of teams.
Soldato
well the reason for moving last time was a drop in support, which from what i can see was caused in part by the raiders turning up and having 2 teams in LA, so not sure their likely to be any different this time ?
Associate
no idea as that was before my time following the nfl
wiki says it's different though but who knows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League_in_Los_Angeles
Soldato
I'm not at all happy about this 
I was hoping that Oakland was going to move back there. Now it's all up in air again for the Raiders, it depends on whether the Chargers decides to follow the Rams into LA, if San Diego decides to go against building them a new stadium.
I wouldn't be happy about the Raiders moving to St. Louis either.
St. Louis Raiders? - I think not.
& what's with the teams having to pay the League a 'Relocation Fee?' has the league become an Estate Agent or something? I don't recall reading about monies being paid to the league when Teams such as the Rams, Raiders, Oilers/Titans moved cities 20 or so years back?
I was hoping that Oakland was going to move back there. Now it's all up in air again for the Raiders, it depends on whether the Chargers decides to follow the Rams into LA, if San Diego decides to go against building them a new stadium. I wouldn't be happy about the Raiders moving to St. Louis either.
St. Louis Raiders? - I think not.
& what's with the teams having to pay the League a 'Relocation Fee?' has the league become an Estate Agent or something? I don't recall reading about monies being paid to the league when Teams such as the Rams, Raiders, Oilers/Titans moved cities 20 or so years back?