w.t.f.

 

I liked his other one better. But those celebrations were both ridiculous.

Yeah, out of bounds shouldn't count if its a great play

 

I'm saying I hate how something like that is considered out of bounds in football. Like earlier when the Cowboys CB picked off the ball, but was ruled down because he brushed up against the WR's shoe when he was getting up. Really? The WR had no idea where the ball was, he was not trying to get the CB down, the CB just happen to hit his foot when he was getting up. That's a damn dumb rule.

Huh? He was out of bounds, its pretty cut and dry.

 

Did anyone say he wasn't?

I'm saying I hate how something like that is considered out of bounds in football. Like earlier when the Cowboys CB picked off the ball, but was ruled down because he brushed up against the WR's shoe when he was getting up. Really? The WR had no idea where the ball was, he was not trying to get the CB down, the CB just happen to hit his foot when he was getting up. That's a damn dumb rule.

 

Ok, possibly the down by contact rule when a runner is down and a small part of the body touches is a little bit dumb. Possibly.

 

 

But the out of bounds line is the out of bounds line, and no part of that is a damn dumb rule. It was an amazing catch, at a really stressful time, but he did not come down in bounds. Nothing sketchy or dumb about that rule, it is out of bounds, his hand hit before his body came down in the endzone. Pretty cut and dry.

I plan on going to the Bears game next week since Nashville is only 3.5 hours away and I've got plenty of friends up there to stay with. Pretty excited. The Titans fans support their team really well, but hopefully we'll have a strong Bears contingent like at the Dallas/Jacksonville games.

 

I thought about that too since it's only about 3 hours for me, but I scored ND tickets for Saturday.

I'm saying I hate how something like that is considered out of bounds in football. Like earlier when the Cowboys CB picked off the ball, but was ruled down because he brushed up against the WR's shoe when he was getting up. Really? The WR had no idea where the ball was, he was not trying to get the CB down, the CB just happen to hit his foot when he was getting up. That's a damn dumb rule.

 

 

You hate how the out of bounds line is considered out of bounds?

You hate how the out of bounds line is considered out of bounds?

Yeah I don't understand this one. It was a great catch, but he didn't come down entirely in bounds. Them's the rules.

I'm saying I hate how something like that is considered out of bounds in football. Like earlier when the Cowboys CB picked off the ball, but was ruled down because he brushed up against the WR's shoe when he was getting up. Really? The WR had no idea where the ball was, he was not trying to get the CB down, the CB just happen to hit his foot when he was getting up. That's a damn dumb rule.

You hate when someone who is out of bounds is considered out of bounds? The first part of him to hit the ground was out of bounds.

 

I'd hate if rules made zero sense, and the result was just anarchy approved by JoeCoolMan24. I'm not really looking to pick on you, so don't act like that. You just have a habit of posting nonsense.

 

I'm saying I hate how something like that is considered out of bounds in football. Like earlier when the Cowboys CB picked off the ball, but was ruled down because he brushed up against the WR's shoe when he was getting up. Really? The WR had no idea where the ball was, he was not trying to get the CB down, the CB just happen to hit his foot when he was getting up. That's a damn dumb rule.

 

Um, because it is out of bounds?

 

There's no such thing as "a little out of bounds", "a little foul", "a little over the goal line" etc...It either is or it isn't. Not really sure how'd you propose changing that. Intent? "Well if he didn't brace himself he would have been in bounds, so TD." Or "he was trying to avoid the guy and barely stepped out, so let's just ignore it"

Um, because it is out of bounds?

 

There's no such thing as "a little out of bounds", "a little foul", "a little over the goal line" etc...It either is or it isn't. Not really sure how'd you propose changing that. Intent? "Well if he didn't brace himself he would have been in bounds, so TD." Or "he was trying to avoid the guy and barely stepped out, so let's just ignore it"

 

Many NFL players have also learned that there's no such thing as "a little pregnant"

Many NFL players have also learned that there's no such thing as "a little pregnant"

 

 

Wait, there isnt? MOTHERf***ER!!!! DAMNIT!

Many NFL players have also learned that there's no such thing as "a little pregnant"

 

 

Especially Antonio Cromartie

Especially Antonio Cromartie

With Cromartie, there's only "a lot pregnant".

Ahh jesus, nevermind. Clearly my point is not being understood, and I don't feel like wasting my time any further. Move along.

Ahh jesus, nevermind. Clearly my point is not being understood, and I don't feel like wasting my time any further. Move along.

Your point that rules shouldn't exist is being misunderstood? I think you don't understand!

Ahh jesus, nevermind. Clearly my point is not being understood, and I don't feel like wasting my time any further. Move along.

 

please waste some time and explain what you are saying. What i am getting from this(and it seems like not only me) is that you are salty because you think the out of bounds ruling is being interpreted incorrectly or too tight.

please waste some time and explain what you are saying. What i am getting from this(and it seems like not only me) is that you are salty because you think the out of bounds ruling is being interpreted incorrectly or too tight.

You don't understand. Also, Patrick Kane is just a college kid.

I think his point is that it's too bad that such a great catch was made that was negated by his fingers barely being out of bounds. I am sure there would be some similar sentiment if this had happened to the Bears.

 

But the rules are the rules, and you can't apply them only when they lead to results that you desire.

One thing about the Bears game.

 

When we were still out of sync in the 3Q, we should have absolutely gone into a no huddle. It was so bad that even when we got a pass off, the receivers were dropping it. After a few completions everything was back to normal.

I think his point is that it's too bad that such a great catch was made that was negated by his fingers barely being out of bounds. I am sure there would be some similar sentiment if this had happened to the Bears.

 

But the rules are the rules, and you can't apply them only when they lead to results that you desire.

 

I totally agree I would be pissed if it negated a bears TD, but he is saying it was bulls*** and comparing it to a dumb ticky tack rule like touching a db with a toe after he intercepted a ball. Not even close to the same thing. His fingers came down OOB before his hips hit the goal area, it sucks but there is no gray area here.

I totally agree I would be pissed if it negated a bears TD, but he is saying it was bulls*** and comparing it to a dumb ticky tack rule like touching a db with a toe after he intercepted a ball. Not even close to the same thing. His fingers came down OOB before his hips hit the goal area, it sucks but there is no gray area here.

Yeah, you will get no argument from me. The bottom line is sometimes the enforcement of the rules produces results that go against the spirit of the rule. But we can't make the enforcement of every rule subjective.

Yeah, you will get no argument from me. The bottom line is sometimes the enforcement of the rules produces results that go against the spirit of the rule. But we can't make the enforcement of every rule subjective.

 

But I don't know how this even goes against the spirit of any rule. Out of bounds is out of bounds. Period.

But I don't know how this even goes against the spirit of any rule. Out of bounds is out of bounds. Period.

You just don't understand.

please waste some time and explain what you are saying. What i am getting from this(and it seems like not only me) is that you are salty because you think the out of bounds ruling is being interpreted incorrectly or too tight.

 

It's just amazing to me that so many took my dislike for the specifics of the rule as "THEY BLEW THAT CALL!! HE WASN'T OUT OF BOUNDS!!!". I already said they made the right call, I am just disappointed in what the rule actually is.

 

But like I said, forget it, move on, I can't win here. If it happened against some other team, maybe.

Oh, and while I'm here, when I ignore a member, it blocks his ability to read my posts too right? I've never done it before, but I'm doing it now.