From what I can tell, the refs made the right call as far as the rules go--it's just that it's a completely moronic rule in the first place (like the "tuck rule" of a couple of years ago).
But speaking of falling with the ball--what do y'all think of doing away with the "the ground can't cause a fumble" rule? In other words--if you can't hang on to the ball when you hit the ground, you don't deserve to call it a catch.
Coles' Catch
-
newshog
- Hog
- Posts: 255
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:57 pm
- Location: Richmond, VA
- Contact:
-
NC43Hog
- Brown in the Hall
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:26 pm
- Location: Carolina Country
- Contact:
Depends newshog.
If Trung or Betts is carrying the ball, I am all in favor of keeping the rules as is - if not we can negotiate.
There have been plenty of times over the years that I have jumped from the couch screaming "the ground can't cause a fumble" and it has saved the skins. Works for and against us.
I can live with it the way it is.
If Trung or Betts is carrying the ball, I am all in favor of keeping the rules as is - if not we can negotiate.
There have been plenty of times over the years that I have jumped from the couch screaming "the ground can't cause a fumble" and it has saved the skins. Works for and against us.
I can live with it the way it is.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Wormer
