Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[Fritsch_the_cat]

I responded twice to your opinion about the badness of the rule and you chose to ignore both. Instead you said...

And I responded to that. Please don't lecture me on posting etiquette.

PS: Maybe it's a bad rule. Maybe it's not. Whichever, it's been the same rule for a long time. It's not a subjective call. You're either in out and it's reviewable, and it works the same for everybody. In the grand scheme this seems like maybe the very smallest of the rules we should be screaming about, but to each his own-

Well, you replied like I said the Devonta and CeeDee plays were exactly alike, but I didn't and made the case why I think CeeDee's catch should have been good based on the same reasoning behind Devonta's catch being good. Toes down in bounds with no part OB.

Well, here we see DaVonta Smith with a similar play. His toes drug to the OB line, same as CeeDee's did, but since CeeDee's heel then came down out of bounds it's not a catch. I say that makes it a bad rule since his toes touched and drug to the OB line the same as Devonta's did.

And you made a reply about how it was the proper ruling, so you were debating the ruling while I was debating the rule itself. Not sure based on the rules I have seen how they ruled the way they did, but maybe they did not see CeeDee drag his toes, or maybe they have been told to interpret the rule a certain way.

But either way my point stands, CeeDee's toes touched and if a toe tap is good enough falling forward it should be good enough falling backwards too. Therefore, since it isn't, bad rule.

 

[VACowboy]

So if this is the rule they used...




it's a good catch because his toes drug.

I'm confused. Are you arguing the call now?

If his toe dragged you're right but I think it's reasonable to believe that the officials didn't see any toe drag. I just watched the clip you posted half a dozen more times and I don't see his toe dragging from that. That clip looks like a classic example of the rule to me.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Yes, if his heel hasn't come down untill after he dragged his toes out, it would have been a TD.

Heel came down after he dragged his toes. It's clear on that slo-mo video he drug his toes, you can see the cloud of dust they kick up while dragging them. You need to watch that full screen hi def slo mo and you'll clearly see it.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

I just watched the clip you posted half a dozen more times and I don't see his toe dragging from that.

Did you watch it in full screen? Because you can clearly see the dust kicked up by his toes dragging well before the heel goes OB.

 

[VACowboy]

Heel came down after he dragged his toes. It's clear on that slo-mo video he drug his toes, you can see the cloud of dust they kick up while dragging them. You need to watch that full screen hi def slo mo and you'll clearly see it.

Yeah, and dust or not I don't see Ceedee's toes dragging.

You seem intent on arguing something and I'm not sure what it is. You lecture about me debating your opinion of the call because you're "arguing the rule, not the ruling," all the while ignoring everything I've said about the rule, and now you're arguing about the ruling again. Like I said, it's not a subjective call. It's reviewable. And it rarely comes up. To me there are much worse rules and much worse calls to complain about and I'm really not sure why I've spent so much time in this thread. I'll just say this and then I'm done: Maybe CeeDee dragged his toe a centimeter or whatever, but to my eye it's not apparent. To my eye this was a quintessential application of the rule by the officials. No more. No less. Whether the rule is bad or not.

 

[Cowpolk]

At 1st I thought it was a TD but it was not according to the way the rule is written

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Yeah, and dust or not I don't see Ceedee's toes dragging.

You seem intent on arguing something and I'm not sure what it is. You lecture about me debating your opinion of the call because you're "arguing the rule, not the ruling," all the while ignoring everything I've said about the rule, and now you're arguing about the ruling again. Like I said, it's not a subjective call. It's reviewable. And it rarely comes up. To me there are much worse rules and much worse calls to complain about and I'm really not sure why I've spent so much time in this thread. I'll just say this and then I'm done: Maybe CeeDee dragged his toe a centimeter or whatever, but to my eye it's not apparent. To my eye this was a quintessential application of the rule by the officials. No more. No less. Whether the rule is bad or not.

Whatever, you have your opinion, I have mine.

 

[aikemirv]

Nfl rules are so dumb. It was obviously a td but whatever

You are asking for the rule to be stupid. The rule is common sense. You are asking for another stupid type of what is a catch rule that the NFL can morph into something stupid. The foot, the whole foot if the whole foot touches -simple a straightforward for over 100 years.

 

[stilltheguru]

You are asking for the rule to be stupid. The rule is common sense. You are asking for another stupid type of what is a catch rule that the NFL can morph into something stupid. The foot, the whole foot if the whole foot touches -simple a straightforward for over 100 years.

Yawn

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

The foot, the whole foot if the whole foot touches -simple a straightforward for over 100 years.

So then, how is this a catch?

 

[aikemirv]

So then, how is this a catch?

So
You do know the rule and what a true toe drag is . I knew you did but you were too busy trying to defend an asinine position!

 

[BrassCowboy]

So then, how is this a catch?

Because the tip toes count as a whole foot, but if the toes come down with the foot then whole foot has to be in bounds. So yes this is easily according to the rules a catch

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Because the tip toes count as a whole foot, but if the toes come down with the foot then whole foot has to be in bounds. So yes this is easily according to the rules a catch

I know, but the person who was calling someone stupid said you have to have the entire foot down for it to be a catch.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

So
You do know the rule and what a true toe drag is . I knew you did but you were too busy trying to defend an asinine position!

You didn't seem to know the rule since you said the whole foot had to be down.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I know, but the person who was calling someone stupid said you have to have the entire foot down for it to be a catch.

Ok, thanks for clarifying the argument. I don't always read the entire thread, so yeah I see where that would of been useful to do here.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Ok, thanks for clarifying the argument. I don't always read the entire thread, so yeah I see where that would of been useful to do here.

No worries. But it does illustrate my point, that if a toe down is good enough in that situation, it should be good enough in CeeDee's situation. He got the toe down and drug it before the heel went OB.

 

[Runwildboys]

I know, but the person who was calling someone stupid said you have to have the entire foot down for it to be a catch.

You mean when he said this?:

You are asking for the rule to be stupid. The rule is common sense. You are asking for another stupid type of what is a catch rule that the NFL can morph into something stupid. The foot, the whole foot if the whole foot touches -simple a straightforward for over 100 years.

He didn't call anyone stupid. He said you were asking for the rule to be stupid. Then he said if the whole foot touches, the whole foot has to be in.

 

[Sydla]

So then, how is this a catch?

It’s been explained multiple times. You refuse to accept what’s been explained.

 

[Cowpolk]

So then, how is this a catch?

He is going foreword not backwards

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

He is going foreword not backwards

I see I'm going to have to remove that because no one understands why it was posted.