Two flat-out lies Troy Aikman told last night

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
17,770
I knew Troy disliked Jerry, but MAN!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

1) Cooper Rush's INT.

CeeDee Lamb gets blasted (unintentionally) with the ball in the air, by a DB who happened to be chasing a different receiver at the time. It was an accidental collision, but still a collision.

Troy said it was perfectly legal and not a penalty!
:lmao2:

Rules experts... show me where in the rulebook it states that a DB can blast a WR with the ball in the air, SO LONG AS he was chasing a different receiver at the time.

Something tells me this "rule" has never existed and is something Troy simply made up, in order to legitimize the bogus INT he just witnessed.

2) Chase Brown's tightrope walk TD.

The call on the field was that he stepped out of bounds before scoring. I've seen the replays from every single angle. I've studied screenshots from every angle.

There is NO UNIVERSE in which there was anything conclusive to overturn the call on the field. It was insanely close.

Troy, Joe Buck and the "rules expert" then collectively decided to lie to the nation and pretend it was OBVIOUSLY a TD and certainly conclusive!
:lmao2:

Naturally, the refs agreed and gave Cincy the TD. Complete and utter horse****.
 

cmoney23

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
2,285
You're wrong in both instances.

You can contact a WR within 5 yards of the LOS. "Per the NFL rulebook, defenders may only make contact with a receiver within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage."

And Chase was clearly inbounds, you could see grass between his shoe and the out of bounds line.

You could argue that the defender used the ground to secure the INT. That seemed likely and should have been looked at closer IMO.
 

Doomsday

Rising Star
Messages
20,260
Reaction score
16,925
That interception was pretty iffy and highlights how bad the NFL rules are regarding what is and isn't a catch.

A big portion of the ball was secured against the ground, how is that catch when you have to secure it through going to the ground?
 

RonnieT24

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,489
Reaction score
22,890
You're wrong in both instances.

You can contact a WR within 5 yards of the LOS. "Per the NFL rulebook, defenders may only make contact with a receiver within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage."

And Chase was clearly inbounds, you could see grass between his shoe and the out of bounds line.

You could argue that the defender used the ground to secure the INT. That seemed likely and should have been looked at closer IMO.
That and the fumble they overturned. That guy tucked the ball under his arm and squared up for contact. Diggs just got there quicker than he was expecting but that was absolutely "a football move." As for the Brown TD.. I thought he was in but I would not have been shocked if they had ruled him out as they did in the first place. It was close enough that I would have stayed with the call either way.
 

irishline

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,791
Reaction score
4,228
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Rules experts... show me where in the rulebook it states that a DB can blast a WR with the ball in the air, SO LONG AS he was chasing a different receiver at the time.
Sure:

LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CONTACT WITH ELIGIBLE RECEIVERS​

ARTICLE 1. LEGAL CONTACT WITHIN FIVE YARDS

Within the area five yards beyond the line of scrimmage, a defensive player may chuck an eligible receiver in front of him. The defender is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone, so long as the receiver has not moved beyond a point that is even with the defender.

ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE

Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver.

ARTICLE 4. INCIDENTAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE

Beyond the five-yard zone, incidental contact may exist between receiver and defender.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/illegal-contact/

It was 6 yards, LOS was the 12, and the contact happened at about the 6. CD cut right at the DB who was trying to cover Ferguson. Therefore the bold above in article 3 (as well as article 4) of the rule clearly applies. You can apologize to Troy any time you wish.
 
Last edited:

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
17,770
Sure:

LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CONTACT WITH ELIGIBLE RECEIVERS​

ARTICLE 1. LEGAL CONTACT WITHIN FIVE YARDS

Within the area five yards beyond the line of scrimmage, a defensive player may chuck an eligible receiver in front of him. The defender is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone, so long as the receiver has not moved beyond a point that is even with the defender.

ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE

Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver.

ARTICLE 4. INCIDENTAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE

Beyond the five-yard zone, incidental contact may exist between receiver and defender.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/illegal-contact/

It was 6 yards, LOS was the 12, and the contact happened at about the 6. CD cut right at the DB who was trying to cover Ferguson. Therefore the bold above in article 3 (as well as article 4) of the rule clearly applies. You can apologize to Troy any time you wish.
Why are you using "illegal contact" when the play in question would've been pass interference?

The ball was in the air.

ARTICLE 2. PROHIBITED ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR​

Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

A) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch;

E) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;


And as far as legal "incidental contact" goes, this is when that applied to PI in this case....

Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball.


CeeDee was, of course, looking for the ball on a slant, or would've been if he hadn't been blasted first. So "incidental contact" shouldn't apply.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/#section-5-pass-interference
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
17,770
You're wrong in both instances.

You can contact a WR within 5 yards of the LOS. "Per the NFL rulebook, defenders may only make contact with a receiver within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage."

And Chase was clearly inbounds, you could see grass between his shoe and the out of bounds line.

You could argue that the defender used the ground to secure the INT. That seemed likely and should have been looked at closer IMO.
Nope.

"5 yards within the LOS" doesn't apply to pass interference, it applies to illegal contact. You're totally wrong.

The ball was already in the air. That's PI every single time.

And LOL at Brown being "clearly inbounds". That's total BS. It was insanely close and by rule, when it's that close you stick with the call on the field.
 

CowboysRule

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
5,203
I feel as though referees have repeatedly ignored the whole irrefutable evidence line as it applies to replays. I've seen many very close calls where, based on the replay, it could really go anyway. In my opinion, if that is the case on any play, you stick with the call on the field, but so many times it seems it is overturned. The opposite happens as well though. The replay seems to make it clear that what they called was not the case and they stick with it. I think reviews should happen at the league office and not reviewed by the same team that made the call.
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
26,847
Reaction score
18,101
That interception was pretty iffy and highlights how bad the NFL rules are regarding what is and isn't a catch.

A big portion of the ball was secured against the ground, how is that catch when you have to secure it through going to the ground?
The difference is, I believe the ball never moved. Even when it was against the ground.
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
51,756
Reaction score
96,986
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
IIRC, CeeDee wasn't on a straight path when the defender ran into him. It looked like just as much his fault as the defender.

As for the TD, I was surprised at first, but after the rear view of the play, he looked to be inbounds.
 

Brooksey

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,174
Reaction score
7,677
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
I knew Troy disliked Jerry, but MAN!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

1) Cooper Rush's INT.

CeeDee Lamb gets blasted (unintentionally) with the ball in the air, by a DB who happened to be chasing a different receiver at the time. It was an accidental collision, but still a collision.

Troy said it was perfectly legal and not a penalty!
:lmao2:

Rules experts... show me where in the rulebook it states that a DB can blast a WR with the ball in the air, SO LONG AS he was chasing a different receiver at the time.

Something tells me this "rule" has never existed and is something Troy simply made up, in order to legitimize the bogus INT he just witnessed.

2) Chase Brown's tightrope walk TD.

The call on the field was that he stepped out of bounds before scoring. I've seen the replays from every single angle. I've studied screenshots from every angle.

There is NO UNIVERSE in which there was anything conclusive to overturn the call on the field. It was insanely close.

Troy, Joe Buck and the "rules expert" then collectively decided to lie to the nation and pretend it was OBVIOUSLY a TD and certainly conclusive!
:lmao2:

Naturally, the refs agreed and gave Cincy the TD. Complete and utter horse****.
I'm tired of Troy Aikman and his announcing

I thought he was out of bounds too, I could see the instep just digging into the white line and there was not enough to overturn.
 

jwitten82

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,647
Reaction score
16,625
Nope.

"5 yards within the LOS" doesn't apply to pass interference, it applies to illegal contact. You're totally wrong.

The ball was already in the air. That's PI every single time.

And LOL at Brown being "clearly inbounds". That's total BS. It was insanely close and by rule, when it's that close you stick with the call on the field.
You need your eyes checked, Brown was in, you could clearly see his foot was still in bounds
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
17,770
I'm tired of Troy Aikman and his announcing

I thought he was out of bounds too, I could see the instep just digging into the white line and there was not enough to overturn.
1000%.

It was extremely close either way, and really impossible to judge conclusively one way or the other.

And that's when, BY RULE, you're supposed to stick with the call on the field.

Aikman saw the very first replay angle they showed and immediately said, "Looks in to me!!"

Then everyone followed suit, including the refs.
 

cowboyfan4life2

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,217
Reaction score
3,442
That and the fumble they overturned. That guy tucked the ball under his arm and squared up for contact. Diggs just got there quicker than he was expecting but that was absolutely "a football move." As for the Brown TD.. I thought he was in but I would not have been shocked if they had ruled him out as they did in the first place. It was close enough that I would have stayed with the call either way.
He was clearly in. Still had space between his shoe and the white.
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
26,847
Reaction score
18,101
1000%.

It was extremely close either way, and really impossible to judge conclusively one way or the other.

And that's when, BY RULE, you're supposed to stick with the call on the field.

Aikman saw the very first replay angle they showed and immediately said, "Looks in to me!!"

Then everyone followed suit, including the refs.
It was so obvious, that he never touched the white. It was definitely green between his foot and the sidelines. The problem was Kendricks didn’t even try to push him out of bounds . He wasn’t even running to try and tackle him. The slowest linebacker in the league. It was a very lazy defensive play.
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
17,770
You need your eyes checked, Brown was in, you could clearly see his foot was still in bounds
Yeah, no it wasn't. You're either blind yourself or willfully ignorant.

It was as close as it gets, and there were angles showing his foot practically hugging the white out of bounds line.

"Conclusive".
:laugh:
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
17,770
He was definitely in bounds, even if it was just one blade of green grass, he was in bounds
"Definitely in"

"By 1 blade of grass"

You don't see how you just contradicted yourself?
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

When it's THAT close, you stick with the call on the field. Period. That's the rule.
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
26,847
Reaction score
18,101
Nope.

"5 yards within the LOS" doesn't apply to pass interference, it applies to illegal contact. You're totally wrong.

The ball was already in the air. That's PI every single time.

And LOL at Brown being "clearly inbounds". That's total BS. It was insanely close and by rule, when it's that close you stick with the call on the field.
Only difference is the spot of the ball? It’s still a first down.
 
Top