PDA

View Full Version : Holmes to miss multiple games. Foot x-rays being passed arond.



Daytona Fin
10-01-2012, 02:36 PM
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8448921/new-york-jets-expect-santonio-holmes-miss-multiple-games


FLORHAM PARK, N.J. -- The New York Jets still don't have a diagnosis of Santonio Holmes' foot injury, but they expect their top wide receiver to miss multiple games.

Coach Rex Ryan confirmed Monday that X-rays of Holmes' left foot, taken Sunday at MetLife Stadium, were negative. Holmes underwent an MRI exam Monday morning, but Ryan claimed they didn't have the results, saying they were "shipped to different places."
Holmes is likely seeking a second opinion. Ryan said doctors haven't determined whether it's muscle or ligament damage. Doctors ruled out an Achilles tendon injury.

Wonder if holmes is hoping a second opinion will get him out of playing the rest of the season?

Wonder if rex is taking a copy of those foot photos home with him to study?

The way holmes tossed that football looked like he didn't care about the game, i know he was in pain but it looked odd.

Tzimisce_
10-01-2012, 02:51 PM
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8448921/new-york-jets-expect-santonio-holmes-miss-multiple-games



Wonder if holmes is hoping a second opinion will get him out of playing the rest of the season?

Wonder if rex is taking a copy of those foot photos home with him to study?

The way holmes tossed that football looked like he didn't care about the game, i know he was in pain but it looked odd.

Maybe he is going interracial with his fetish.

The New Guy
10-01-2012, 04:12 PM
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8448921/new-york-jets-expect-santonio-holmes-miss-multiple-games



Wonder if holmes is hoping a second opinion will get him out of playing the rest of the season?

Wonder if rex is taking a copy of those foot photos home with him to study?

The way holmes tossed that football looked like he didn't care about the game, i know he was in pain but it looked odd.

It certainly seemed that way. I have seen a lot of guys get injured and their main concern was to still make the play. Like you said, Holmes was in pain, but there is no reason to toss the ball up right towards the defender like that. I don't think he cared about the game at that point and was only concerned about himself. This is not anything that everyone doesn't already know though. Holmes has always been a selfish player.

JETSJETSJETS
10-02-2012, 03:01 AM
It certainly seemed that way. I have seen a lot of guys get injured and their main concern was to still make the play. Like you said, Holmes was in pain, but there is no reason to toss the ball up right towards the defender like that. I don't think he cared about the game at that point and was only concerned about himself. This is not anything that everyone doesn't already know though. Holmes has always been a selfish player.

Yeah, it seemed very odd. I've seen players get destroyed and still hang on the football somehow. I've never seen anyone throw away the ball the way he did. He is a selfish player and I hope he gets released in 2014. His 2013 salary is fully guaranteed so there's no point in releasing him any time soon.

nyjunc
10-02-2012, 08:19 AM
Holmes gave himself up, the play should have been whistled dead

The New Guy
10-02-2012, 12:12 PM
Holmes gave himself up, the play should have been whistled dead

No, I don't think so. Holmes didn't go to the ground to give himself up. He fell because he hurt his foot. There is a big difference. As soon as he hit the ground, he tossed the ball right to the defender. It was a stupid / selfish play. I don't believe he was thinking that he was declaring himself down by tossing the ball. I believe that he didn't care what happened after injuring himself. You could argue that it could have been ruled a forward fumble / pass, but he wasn't trying to do either.

AphexPhin
10-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Man the Jets are EFFED

nyjunc
10-02-2012, 01:20 PM
No, I don't think so. Holmes didn't go to the ground to give himself up. He fell because he hurt his foot. There is a big difference. As soon as he hit the ground, he tossed the ball right to the defender. It was a stupid / selfish play. I don't believe he was thinking that he was declaring himself down by tossing the ball. I believe that he didn't care what happened after injuring himself. You could argue that it could have been ruled a forward fumble / pass, but he wasn't trying to do either.

he fell b/c he got hurt and was down before throwing the ball up. The play should have been whistled dead. It wasn't as soon as he hit the ground, he was down already making no attempt to get up when he flipped it up.

They blew that replay review as well as the Epps fumble on the Tebow pass. That's not why we lost but they were horrific calls.

grogan12
10-02-2012, 01:38 PM
]Holmes gave himself up, the play should have been whistled dead[/B]

You don't know what your talking about, a player can give themselves up to avoid the hit, but the play isn't dead until the defense touches him, at which point he had already thrown a live ball into the hands of the defender. Looks like the Jets will be drafting a new QB this year. :boohoo:

nyjunc
10-02-2012, 01:50 PM
You don't know what your talking about, a player can give themselves up to avoid the hit, but the play isn't dead until the defense touches him, at which point he had already thrown a live ball into the hands of the defender. Looks like the Jets will be drafting a new QB this year. :boohoo:


Section 2 Dead Ball
Article 1: Dead Ball Declared.

(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and
making no effort to advance;

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

did he make any effort to advance the ball? and effort to get up? No, it was a bad call. this did not cost us the game, we were losing anyway but it was a bad call.

Vaark
10-02-2012, 02:15 PM
Junk is such a homer: if Mussolini had been a jet, he'd ignore the fascism, war criminality and mass murder instead pointing out how great it was that he made the trains run on time.

nyjunc
10-02-2012, 02:22 PM
I love when the biggest homer on the board calls someone else a homer and I really love when he has 2 usernames coming after me.

grogan12
10-02-2012, 02:27 PM
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

did he make any effort to advance the ball? and effort to get up? No, it was a bad call. this did not cost us the game, we were losing anyway but it was a bad call.

he sure did make an effort to advance the ball, he just advanced it into the defenses hands. Enjoy 5-11, it's coming.

nyjunc
10-02-2012, 02:31 PM
he sure did make an effort to advance the ball, he just advanced it into the defenses hands. Enjoy 5-11, it's coming.

thanks vaarky!

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 02:39 PM
Must be a lot of swelling for the MRI's to still be so inconclusive. If he had a Lisfranc that probably would have shown up on an X-ray. He tore something in there, seems like.

nyjunc
10-02-2012, 02:40 PM
Must be a lot of swelling for the MRI's to still be so inconclusive. If he had a Lisfranc that would have shown up on an X-ray. He tore something in there, seems like.

I would guess, I will be surprised if he is not done for the year.

ryanosaur2000
10-02-2012, 03:00 PM
I would guess, I will be surprised if he is not done for the year.

If you need a WR we have a guy called Nannee who is going cheap.

PhinzN703
10-02-2012, 03:53 PM
thanks vaarky!

Why would Vaark have a second screen name?

Vaark
10-02-2012, 04:56 PM
thanks vaarky!

you're delusional as usual... but maybe you should consider a mult on TGG for all the disrespect you're even getting over there for being such a bullheaded blind homer. (they really don't like you much over there do they?)

WVDolphan
10-02-2012, 06:02 PM
Junc is correct that a player can be down without being touched if he gives himself up, such as a QB taking a knee. However, Holmes wasnt giving himself up. He went to the ground because he was injured. Big difference.

Pitching the ball away like that was odd as hell. I can understand being in tremendous pain how he could lose sight of what is going on, however at the same time, he couldve easily just chucked the ball out of bounds there. If he had just dropped the thing it wouldnt have looked as odd as tossing it softly right at the defensive player. Unreal.

I remember when I broke my ankle one time, I was carrying a couple of things. All 3 objects went flying in the air and landed in 3 random spots quite a distance from where my body crashed to the ground. However, the difference was the things went flying as I was falling due to all of my weight being on the one leg that I had just broken. Obviously I crashed straight to the ground. I suppose the stuff I was carrying just involuntarially went flying as my arms flew up. If I had landed with the things in my hands like Holmes did, I probably just set them down or clutch them harder from the tremendous pain. Being in the middle of a football game, I dont understand how he dosent clutch that ball or have the presence to toss it to the sideline right beside him. Im figuring he was frustrated and didnt give a ****. Who knows.

The New Guy
10-02-2012, 08:20 PM
he fell b/c he got hurt and was down before throwing the ball up. The play should have been whistled dead. It wasn't as soon as he hit the ground, he was down already making no attempt to get up when he flipped it up.

They blew that replay review as well as the Epps fumble on the Tebow pass. That's not why we lost but they were horrific calls.

Players that get injured and fall to the ground are not immediately declared down. Holmes never declared himself down. He went down because of an injury not because he was giving himself up. He gave the ball up in less than 1 second after he hit the ground. You are being so biased. You say the Holmes play should have been whistled dead, but you argue that the Cruz play against the Cardinals last year should have been ruled a fumble. :lol:

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 11:08 PM
Jason Cole now reporting that Holmes has a Lisfranc injury at minimum. Must really be a ****ed up picture in there for it to have been this hard to spot.

Anyway, bad news for him. It's a really tough injury to recover from. Ronnie never did. He's never had more than 85 yards in a game since and went from averaging 4.4+ yards per carry to far less than 4 afterwards.

Wildbill3
10-02-2012, 11:51 PM
ok not lauging at the injury, but at the possibility of holmes having rex look at his foot... lol

Daytona Fin
10-03-2012, 07:54 AM
Jason Cole now reporting that Holmes has a Lisfranc injury at minimum. Must really be a ****ed up picture in there for it to have been this hard to spot.

Anyway, bad news for him. It's a really tough injury to recover from. Ronnie never did. He's never had more than 85 yards in a game since and went from averaging 4.4+ yards per carry to far less than 4 afterwards.
Seen that this morning, holmes will probably never be the same player. Didn't Ronnie injure his the same way , out in the open, non contact?

MadDog 88
10-03-2012, 08:30 AM
Holmes slipped down and immediately flipped the ball away when he hit the ground. There is no way of determining if he is going down and giving himself up a: based on the way he went down and b: how quickly the play occurred. This is much different then a guy kneeling or sliding feet first. Refs made the right call. No sympathy whistles in the NFL and its pointless to cry about it because it doesn't change the outcome of the game.

The Jets and their fans have a lot bigger things to worry about.

nyjunc
10-03-2012, 09:55 AM
you're delusional as usual... but maybe you should consider a mult on TGG for all the disrespect you're even getting over there for being such a bullheaded blind homer. (they really don't like you much over there do they?)


I don't need to hide behind a fake account.


Junc is correct that a player can be down without being touched if he gives himself up, such as a QB taking a knee. However, Holmes wasnt giving himself up. He went to the ground because he was injured. Big difference.

Pitching the ball away like that was odd as hell. I can understand being in tremendous pain how he could lose sight of what is going on, however at the same time, he couldve easily just chucked the ball out of bounds there. If he had just dropped the thing it wouldnt have looked as odd as tossing it softly right at the defensive player. Unreal.

I remember when I broke my ankle one time, I was carrying a couple of things. All 3 objects went flying in the air and landed in 3 random spots quite a distance from where my body crashed to the ground. However, the difference was the things went flying as I was falling due to all of my weight being on the one leg that I had just broken. Obviously I crashed straight to the ground. I suppose the stuff I was carrying just involuntarially went flying as my arms flew up. If I had landed with the things in my hands like Holmes did, I probably just set them down or clutch them harder from the tremendous pain. Being in the middle of a football game, I dont understand how he dosent clutch that ball or have the presence to toss it to the sideline right beside him. Im figuring he was frustrated and didnt give a ****. Who knows.

he did give himself up, he went down injured and made no attempt to advance the ball then flung it in the air. I'm glad the call was blown in a blowout and not a close game but it was the incorrect call.

Tunaphish429
10-03-2012, 09:58 AM
Idk that I can say that Holmes gave himself up. Eli dove face first a few years back...hit the ground and fumbled the ball..So IMO the right call was made...

Jets are done tho...losing holmes hurts them in a huge way..Their D is playing awful, their offense is awful (As all Dolphins fans predicted)...

Rex Ryan will be fired after this year...and I hope to god Tony is made head coach!!! That would be awesome!!

nyjunc
10-03-2012, 10:01 AM
Idk that I can say that Holmes gave himself up. Eli dove face first a few years back...hit the ground and fumbled the ball..So IMO the right call was made...

Jets are done tho...losing holmes hurts them in a huge way..Their D is playing awful, their offense is awful (As all Dolphins fans predicted)...

Rex Ryan will be fired after this year...and I hope to god Tony is made head coach!!! That would be awesome!!

the awful O has been the main reason we won 2 games and we do get Keller back this week. chance are we are done but you never know.

rex will not be fired, there is a MUCH better chance Philbin is gone after your GM is fired than Rex being fired.

Vaark
10-03-2012, 10:55 AM
If Tannenbaum goes, which is the active widespread speculation on all the jest boards, Rex will be gone too. Already Woody is intimating that if things don't turn around, they need to substitute in Tebow. And you know he'll listen to fan consensus cause for him it's all about the buck$. That house is swaying on its shaky foundation.

The New Guy
10-03-2012, 11:24 AM
he did give himself up, he went down injured and made no attempt to advance the ball then flung it in the air. I'm glad the call was blown in a blowout and not a close game but it was the incorrect call.

Going down injured and throwing the ball up in under a second after you hit the ground is not declaring yourself down. Please explain to me how you can think that the Cruz play should have been ruled a fumble last year, but the Holmes play this year should have been blown dead?

MadDog 88
10-03-2012, 12:53 PM
If Tannenbaum goes, which is the active widespread speculation on all the jest boards, Rex will be gone too. Already Woody is intimating that if things don't turn around, they need to substitute in Tebow. And you know he'll listen to fan consensus cause for him it's all about the buck$. That house is swaying on its shaky foundation.
Woody was quoted on Bloomberg referring to Senor Snatcho as "that quarterback." I expect the Jets will be humiliated on MNF and Rex wont have a choice except to start Tebow.

Sanchez needs to go to another team where he can start over as a backup. The Jets handling of him from the start was horrible and they have done nothing to help him.

nyjunc
10-03-2012, 01:34 PM
Going down injured and throwing the ball up in under a second after you hit the ground is not declaring yourself down. Please explain to me how you can think that the Cruz play should have been ruled a fumble last year, but the Holmes play this year should have been blown dead?

yes it is, he made no attempt to get up and advance the ball thus giving himself up.

The New Guy
10-03-2012, 03:27 PM
yes it is, he made no attempt to get up and advance the ball thus giving himself up.

There was no time to attempt to advance the ball or get up since he threw the ball away in less than a second after he hit the ground. How in the world is an official supposed to determine that Holmes was giving himself up when he clearly went the the ground becasue of an injury, and threw the ball away so quickly. It is impossible. When a player trips himself or gets injured and falls to the ground, the play is not over until he is touched, or the whistle is blown. If you give up the ball before either of those things happen, it will be ruled a fumble.

The thing that gets me is that you are not consistent with your opinions. You argued that the Cruz play should have been a fumble, and yet you claim that the Holmes play should have been blown dead when it is even more obvious that he was not giving himself up.

nyjunc
10-03-2012, 05:03 PM
if the Cruz play was ruled down then this one should have been ruled down.

The New Guy
10-03-2012, 06:18 PM
if the Cruz play was ruled down then this one should have been ruled down.

:lol: That is like saying since the Fasano play was ruled a catch, then any play in which the player loses control of the ball going out of bounds should be ruled a catch. :confused: You thought that the Cruz play was a bad call. So, if you think that the Cruz play was a bad call, then you should think that the Holmes play was the right call. At least be consistent.

Regardless, the situations were completely different. There was not much time left in the game, and Cruz actually looked over his shoulder and saw the defender before he dropped to the ground on his own. I don't think Cruz was familiar with the rule, but I can see how the official would consider that giving himself up. Holmes went to the ground because of an injury, not because he was giving himself up.

nyjunc
10-04-2012, 08:19 AM
:lol: That is like saying since the Fasano play was ruled a catch, then any play in which the player loses control of the ball going out of bounds should be ruled a catch. :confused: You thought that the Cruz play was a bad call. So, if you think that the Cruz play was a bad call, then you should think that the Holmes play was the right call. At least be consistent.

Regardless, the situations were completely different. There was not much time left in the game, and Cruz actually looked over his shoulder and saw the defender before he dropped to the ground on his own. I don't think Cruz was familiar with the rule, but I can see how the official would consider that giving himself up. Holmes went to the ground because of an injury, not because he was giving himself up.

Crus went down on his own, Holmes didn't. he couldn't possibly run, he was completely given up and those are calls the Giants always get and the Jets never get. It's frustrating. The TB game 2 weeks ago TB has a catch around the 15 in the last 20 secs going in for the tying score, the WR catches it runs a couple of yards then gets hit and the ball comes loose. Should have been a catch but they rule it incomplete, in the SB, the Manningham play. the rule is if the ball moves at all when you hit the ground on a sideline play like that it's incomplete but they ruled it complete. The Fasano drop was clear as day and they still blew, the Holmes play was clear, the Epps fumble was clear. That's why I hate replay b/c they still always get it wrong.

PhinzN703
10-04-2012, 10:29 AM
if the Cruz play was ruled down then this one should have been ruled down.

The world is out to get the Jets. They're ready for 'em though, they're ready.

nyjunc
10-04-2012, 10:59 AM
The world is out to get the Jets. They're ready for 'em though, they're ready.

it may be a "giant" coincidence but the proof is on video.

PhinzN703
10-04-2012, 12:49 PM
it may be a "giant" coincidence but the proof is on video.

When proof is subjective, it isn't proof.

The New Guy
10-04-2012, 04:31 PM
Crus went down on his own, Holmes didn't. he couldn't possibly run, he was completely given up and those are calls the Giants always get and the Jets never get. It's frustrating. The TB game 2 weeks ago TB has a catch around the 15 in the last 20 secs going in for the tying score, the WR catches it runs a couple of yards then gets hit and the ball comes loose. Should have been a catch but they rule it incomplete, in the SB, the Manningham play. the rule is if the ball moves at all when you hit the ground on a sideline play like that it's incomplete but they ruled it complete. The Fasano drop was clear as day and they still blew, the Holmes play was clear, the Epps fumble was clear. That's why I hate replay b/c they still always get it wrong.

Wow Junc! You sure have done a 360 on your view of bad calls and lucky breaks. :lol:

The Holmes and Cruz play were completely different situations. Cruz went down on his own with not much time left in the game. The officials had reason to believe that he was declaring himself down. I think the Cruz play was a bad call since Cruz did not know the rule and he thought he was touched down. Holmes went down because he got injured and it was at the beginning of the 4th quarter. He threw the ball away in under a second after he hit the ground. That is not declaring yourself down. That is a stupid play. Even if Holmes intended to give himself up, there was no way for the officials to determine if he was declaring himself down since he tossed the ball away so quickly. He was not down, and he was not declaring himself down. You could argue that it was an illegal forward pass, but Holmes did not declare himself down.

The Epps play was very close, but I would agree with you that it was a bad call.

You are way off on the Tampa call. Mike Williams barely got his second foot down before he was knocked out of bounds. He was bobbling the ball the whole time and never demonstrated possession. Take a look at it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1b9QaxD3k

You can get a good look at the 3:15 mark.

I'm not getting into the Manningham reception again. You can go back to that other thread and read all about why that was a catch.

nyjunc
10-04-2012, 04:44 PM
Wow Junc! You sure have done a 360 on your view of bad calls and lucky breaks. :lol:

The Holmes and Cruz play were completely different situations. Cruz went down on his own with not much time left in the game. The officials had reason to believe that he was declaring himself down. I think the Cruz play was a bad call since Cruz did not know the rule and he thought he was touched down. Holmes went down because he got injured and it was at the beginning of the 4th quarter. He threw the ball away in under a second after he hit the ground. That is not declaring yourself down. That is a stupid play. Even if Holmes intended to give himself up, there was no way for the officials to determine if he was declaring himself down since he tossed the ball away so quickly. He was not down, and he was not declaring himself down. You could argue that it was an illegal forward pass, but Holmes did not declare himself down.

The Epps play was very close, but I would agree with you that it was a bad call.

You are way off on the Tampa call. Mike Williams barely got his second foot down before he was knocked out of bounds. He was bobbling the ball the whole time and never demonstrated possession. Take a look at it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1b9QaxD3k

You can get a good look at the 3:15 mark.

I'm not getting into the Manningham reception again. You can go back to that other thread and read all about why that was a catch.

Cruz thought he fumbled, manning thought the game was over. he didn't give himself up, Holmes couldn't move b/c he was hurt, he was given up.

Mike Williams caught the ball, got his feet down then was hit where the ball came loose.

it wasn't a catch by the rulebook which was posted numerous times in that other thread. The bottom line is this, switch the teams and the calls change. heck the biggest difference btw the Jets in the '10 title game and NYG in '11 was on an extremely close play they rules Sanchez's pass a fumble and they blew the whistle on Ahmad Bradshaw's fumble late in the game. Those close plays go the other way and NYG doesn't have a SB and we might have made it.

The New Guy
10-04-2012, 05:10 PM
Cruz thought he fumbled, manning thought the game was over. he didn't give himself up, Holmes couldn't move b/c he was hurt, he was given up.

Mike Williams caught the ball, got his feet down then was hit where the ball came loose.

it wasn't a catch by the rulebook which was posted numerous times in that other thread. The bottom line is this, switch the teams and the calls change. heck the biggest difference btw the Jets in the '10 title game and NYG in '11 was on an extremely close play they rules Sanchez's pass a fumble and they blew the whistle on Ahmad Bradshaw's fumble late in the game. Those close plays go the other way and NYG doesn't have a SB and we might have made it.

Cruz did give himself up. He looked over his shoulder and saw the defender closing in on him and dropped to the ground on his own. He didn't know about the rule, and thought he was touched down, which is why he put the ball on the ground. That is why I think it was a bad call, but I can see why the officials thought he was giving himself up. There is no way the officials could think that Holmes was giving himself up. Injured players going to the ground are not declared down until they are touched down. Injured players falling to the ground are not falling to the ground to declare themselves down. They are going to the ground becasue they are injured. Most hold on to the ball until they are touched down. Holmes was stupid, didn't care, and tossed it away as soon as he hit the ground.

Mike Williams never demonstrated possession. The ball was moving before he dropped it out of bounds. That is not even a close play. Please look at it again! Bad calls do happen, but most of the ones you are mentioning were the right calls.

The rule was posted in that other thread which you apparently still don't understand. It is hilarious that you are arguing that the Mike Williams play was a catch (when he never demonstrated possession and he completely dropped the ball out of bounds) and arguing that the Manningham play was not a catch becasue the ball moved slightly. Just like you argue that the Cruz play was a bad call when they ruled him down, but argue the opposite on the Holmes play.

It's alright. It is all just one big conspiracy against the Jets. :lol:

nyjunc
10-05-2012, 08:52 AM
he didn't know the rule and thought he fumbled, he didn't willingly throw the ball up like Holmes.

Williams did demonstrate possession, he had it and ran for 2 steps before being hit and the ball came out.

either the Cruz and Holmes plays are both down or both fumbles and if one wasn't it was the Holmes play b/c he actually gave himself up.

The New Guy
10-05-2012, 09:50 AM
he didn't know the rule and thought he fumbled, he didn't willingly throw the ball up like Holmes.

Williams did demonstrate possession, he had it and ran for 2 steps before being hit and the ball came out.

either the Cruz and Holmes plays are both down or both fumbles and if one wasn't it was the Holmes play b/c he actually gave himself up.

It doesn't really matter if he knew the rule or not. What matters is how the officials interpret his actions. He absolutely gave the ball up willingly. It didn't get knocked out. He went to the ground on his own (thought he was touched down) then willingly dropped the ball on his own. The game situation and the time that passed when he went to the ground was enough for the officials to determine that he was giving himself up. Again, I don't agree with the call becasue we know that is not what he was doing based on his post game comments, but I can see why the offcials made the call. That is not the case with Holmes. Holmes went to the ground only becasue of an injury (He didn't willingly go down on his own) and immediately tossed the ball away. He did not care about the game situation or anything other than the pain he was in. That is not giving yourself up. Even if you truly thought that is what he was trying to do, there is no way for the officials to determine that, since he did it so quickly.


Williams was bobbling it the whole time. Even if he was not, the ball is not allowed to come out of his possession on a sideline catch. This is what kills me with you. You argue that the Manningham play shouldn't have been ruled a catch because the ball moved slightly (even though he maintained possession the whole time), but you then argue that the Mike Williams play should have been ruled a catch when he completely dropped the ball. He didn't have it and run for 2 steps. He was in the air when he caught it, and barley got the second foot down before he was hit and lost the ball. Even Mike Williams himself admits that it wasn't a catch:

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2012/09/buccaneers_postgame_reaction_a.html


Williams: "I have to hold onto it. I have to go all the way through the ground with it. Itís one of those situations that I have to learn from right there. He kind of popped into my view real late, I couldnít get it all the way up to my chin, and it bobbled out."

nyjunc
10-05-2012, 10:18 AM
that quote tells us nothing. either way the calls were made and they aren't changing.

The New Guy
10-05-2012, 10:37 AM
that quote tells us nothing. either way the calls were made and they aren't changing.

:lol: It tells us that even Mike Williams knows the rule and knows it wasn't a catch. The call shouldn't change because the officials made the right call. Mike Williams doesn't know what he is talking about though. The officials don't know what they are talking about, and anyone else who sees that was not a catch don't know what they are talking about. The only thing that matters is your interpretation of the sideline catch rule where you say the ball can't move an inch, or it isn't a catch. Unless, the team you are playing is the Giants. In that case, you can completely drop the ball out of bounds and it should be ruled a catch. :lol:

nyjunc
10-05-2012, 10:39 AM
it tells us he feels he should have held onto it after he was hit.

he caught it, possessed it, took 2 steps in stride then got hit and the ball came out out of bounds.

The New Guy
10-05-2012, 11:03 AM
it tells us he feels he should have held onto it after he was hit.

he caught it, possessed it, took 2 steps in stride then got hit and the ball came out out of bounds.

Why would he tell us that if he thought it should have been ruled a catch? He told us that becasue he knows that he has to maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground. He never even had to worry about hitting the ground becasue he dropped it long before that. He caught it in the air (bobbled it) got 2 feet down before getting hit and the ball came out. You can have control of the ball (even with ball movement when you hit the ground), but you obviously can not have control of the ball when it falls out of your hands and hits the ground.

Daytona Fin
10-05-2012, 12:49 PM
You can't see common sense wearing these.


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/newyorkjetstitangreenwhitetipsunglasses3-1.jpg

TheWalrus
10-05-2012, 01:17 PM
Great job by The New Guy in this thread. Knowledgeable, consistent and insistent. Bravo.

nyjunc
10-05-2012, 01:42 PM
Why would he tell us that if he thought it should have been ruled a catch? He told us that becasue he knows that he has to maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground. He never even had to worry about hitting the ground becasue he dropped it long before that. He caught it in the air (bobbled it) got 2 feet down before getting hit and the ball came out. You can have control of the ball (even with ball movement when you hit the ground), but you obviously can not have control of the ball when it falls out of your hands and hits the ground.

but who cares what he says? is he going to whine about it after the fact>? how does that help TB? if he possesses it after the hit the play never gets reviewed. On a sideline play you needed to maintain control all the way through(which Manningham did not in the SB), on this play he caught it and ran w/ it. The rule is different, he can lose after being hit as long as he had possession and took 2 steps which he did.

PhinzN703
10-05-2012, 02:32 PM
but who cares what he says? is he going to whine about it after the fact>? how does that help TB? if he possesses it after the hit the play never gets reviewed. On a sideline play you needed to maintain control all the way through(which Manningham did not in the SB), on this play he caught it and ran w/ it. The rule is different, he can lose after being hit as long as he had possession and took 2 steps which he did.

If the actual guy is admitting it and you're denying it, who the hell do you think is right?

nyjunc
10-05-2012, 03:02 PM
If the actual guy is admitting it and you're denying it, who the hell do you think is right?

he didn't admit anything and who cares if he did? he said he should have held onto it when he got hit, that doesn't mean he admits to anything or even knows the rule.

The New Guy
10-05-2012, 08:57 PM
he didn't admit anything and who cares if he did? he said he should have held onto it when he got hit, that doesn't mean he admits to anything or even knows the rule.

He said "I have to hold onto it. I have to go all the way through the ground with it." That sounds like he knows, or was told later about the sideline catch rule. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what he said. We know what the rules are. He did not catch it and run with it. He was in the air when he caught the ball, and got hit as soon as he put the second foot on the ground. He lost the ball a split second after his second foot hit the ground. He can only lose the ball if he had been able to make a football move. Since he did not, the sideline rule was applied. If you think Mike Williams made a football move, then you can't argue about the Epps fumble in the Jets game. Both got 2 feet down before losing the ball, but neither made what I would consider a football move. The Epps fumble was a bad call. The Williams play was not.

nyjunc
10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
where does he say it wasn't a catch? he's saying I have to remove all doubt by holding onto it hitting the ground. He's not saying anything else.

he made a football move, caught the ball and took multiple steps w/ the ball before being hit and the ball coming loose.

Epps never had a chance to move, completely different play.

The New Guy
10-08-2012, 10:14 AM
where does he say it wasn't a catch? he's saying I have to remove all doubt by holding onto it hitting the ground. He's not saying anything else.

he made a football move, caught the ball and took multiple steps w/ the ball before being hit and the ball coming loose.

Epps never had a chance to move, completely different play.

This is not true. Watch the play again. He caught the ball in the air and barely got the 2nd foot down before being knocked out of bounds. There never was another step (in bounds with control of the ball) after the initial 2 feet down. You have to get both feet down, and then make a football move for it to be considered a catch. He was able to get 2 feet down, but was not able to make a move after that. He did not take multiple steps before being knocked out of bounds where the ball came loose. That means in order for it to be considered a catch, he would have had to have control of the ball throughout the entire play. He did not, which is why the play was ruled incomplete.

The Epps play is very similar. He got 2 feet down before the ball came loose. Neither player made a football move.

nyjunc
10-08-2012, 10:36 AM
caught the ball in stride, took 2 steps then gets hit and loses the ball. Epps never had chance to move a foot or turn upfield. 2 completely different plays

The New Guy
10-08-2012, 10:57 AM
caught the ball in stride, took 2 steps then gets hit and loses the ball. Epps never had chance to move a foot or turn upfield. 2 completely different plays

It doesn't matter how you take those first 2 steps. Getting 2 feet down, and then losing the ball immediately (no football move), is not a catch. Both players got 2 feet down and lost the ball. Neither made a football move.

nyjunc
10-08-2012, 11:06 AM
of course it is, he was running w/ the ball. how is that not a football move?

The New Guy
10-08-2012, 11:15 AM
of course it is, he was running w/ the ball. how is that not a football move?

Because he was not running with the ball after he got his second foot down. The rule is, control with 2 feet down,and then a football move.

nyjunc
10-08-2012, 11:28 AM
he was in stride, you don't need to take 2 strides then keep running.

The New Guy
10-08-2012, 01:26 PM
he was in stride, you don't need to take 2 strides then keep running.

Where do you come up with this stuff? That is not what the rule states.




Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:


A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:


(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game.

Williams fulfilled part A and part B, but not C. He was immediately hit after part B, which made it impossible to fulfill part C.

nyjunc
10-08-2012, 04:29 PM
but he got both feet down, right? and was in stride, right?

The New Guy
10-08-2012, 04:46 PM
but he got both feet down, right? and was in stride, right?

It doesn't matter if he was in stride when the initial 2 feet touch the ground after the catch. Getting both feet down after the catch only fulfills part B. You have to get both feet down and then maintain control of the ball long enough to perform a football move. If you can't do that becasue you getting knocked out of bounds, you need to have control of the ball throughout the entire process of contacting the ground.