The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:50 pm**

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2652716-how-the-cowboys-or-ravens-jaguars-or-even-the-chargers-can-win-super-bowl-li

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:41 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2652716-how-the-cowboys-or-ravens-jaguars-or-even-the-chargers-can-win-super-bowl-li

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:12 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:

Due explain your Irony theory Monk? the fact the idiot who wrote the article is living in virtual fantasy
while I live in reality...basing everything I've seen on uncertainties such as Romo and his shoulder,
the offensive line which last year was the cause of Romo being sent out with the shoulder injury in
the first place, The fact they have but 2 good receivers in Bryant and Witten after that? It's a literal
who's who of unexpectancy and then there is the fact the defense is total garbage, Running backs??
2 aging veterans and 1 rookie everyone thinks is going to take the world by storm having never
played a single down of football in the NFL and then there is the defense? lmao

Hardy and Mcclain - gone, 2 ends on a 4 game suspension, NO linebackers except Sean Lee
with a burnt toast secondary..Yet despite it all! The Irony here is that there isn't a single
shred of evidence due to provided fact that supports any ability to safely say the NO stars
are even in the ballpark of winning super bowl LI this year...

Your turn

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:34 pm**

Perhaps this TC was in the other universe during the discussion about a particular clear incompletion... #-o

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:58 pm**

Countertrey wrote:about a particular clear incompletion...

I remember that, the lies were? the ball hits the ground, He never made
a football move after the catch and then that got wiped away and it then
became he never maintained possession throughout....which brings us to
this

3 irrefutable pictures that show he maintained possession and the
ball never touched the ground at any point

the last picture provides the last bit of evidence for the defense, the first is the the football move
which is a required 2 steps after the catch is made, the second is that according to the rules down
by contact is defined when initial contact is made once a player is established as a runner

when Dez lined up prior to the snap he became a runner despite the fact his position is
wide receiver...when he came into contact with the defender he became down immediately
and the ref at that point needed to blow the whistle and spot where the catch was made
which happened till the head ref, was uncertain and called for a review of the play to
make sure, However the side ref who was closer than the head ref, Had in fact called
the play dead and ruled he caught it...which makes you wonder who made the most off
the botched call because Dallas was getting to close for comfort?

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:53 pm**

Lemmings gotta run to the sea... TC gotta argue the inarguable... The world goes round.

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:31 pm**

Countertrey wrote:Lemmings gotta run to the sea... TC gotta argue the inarguable... The world goes round.

Here is what we've learned thus far,

* The Warren commission has concluded that a lone nut
shot and killed JFK by managing to fire 3 shots in under
6 seconds with an Italian bolt action carcono rifle from
the 6th floor window of the Texas book depository that
also produced the Magic Bullet that entered, exited and
then rentered Governer Connelly....

now back to football - It's obvious that by claiming
inarguable Trey doesn't feel he needs to justify the
claims of the NFL or their media counter parts due
to the fact they never lie and do real ground breaking
journalistic work

Just like the brillent jouranlistic work he gave us
with the Lemming comment to begin his wabash
of usual BS, - Enter your wrong again

Lemmings don't run out to sea, they drown
in water...just like his enter defense about
a certain incident in GB is drowing ever so
slowly

[/img]

Frame 1) a football inside his hand as he is going to the ground

Frames 2-3) the ball is tucked in his arm

hmm guess that destroys the theory of it touched the ground...moving
right along

[/img]

* What constitutes a football move?? - 2 steps even if contact is made - check

* When is a WR considered a runner? - the very second he lines up on - check

Down by contact? - any part of the body that touches the ground be it a knee
or an elbow, check, yet the Warren commision wants us to believe that this
magic bullet aka football truly hit the ground or that he didn't maintain full
control..the pictures don't lie, But since the reality and facts governing the
truth can't disgrace the great and powerful NFL and media

it couldn't have been as TC said, the media and the NFL don't lie to us
9/11 was perpetrated by hijackers from Al Quada and Osama Bin Laden
just as they reported...or maybe just maybe Trey like the NFL and the
media are so full of *sh$t*, That they will do everything in their power to
ensure that we never know the truth and it all starts with this gem of a
comment

Countertrey wrote:TC gotta argue the inarguable...

Preserving the lie by making one out to be a conspiracy theorist
since???????

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:21 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:

3 irrefutable pictures that show he maintained possession and the
ball never touched the ground at any point

In fact, they show nothing of the kind. They clearly show that he did not maintain possession, and you can't see the moment the ball hits the ground, but you can clearly see in photo one that the ball will hit the ground just before his elbow, and you can see in the second the equal and opposite reaction of the ball hitting the ground and bouncing out of his possession. And the video just makes it even more clear. Also, there are other angles in the other thread, that show the ball plainly on the ground and totally loose in the air after.

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:32 am**

The pass was ruled incomplete. Get over it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:21 am**

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:The pass was ruled incomplete. Get over it.

I know what their official ruling claimed...upon further review what they claimed
is 100% false and the proof is right in the pictures and video provided

so NO I won't get over it!!! the truth speaks for itself

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:17 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:

Due explain your Irony ...

You mean Do rather than Due, right.

The irony is you posting this:

Your failure to understand that is meta-irony.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:57 pm**

Deadskins wrote:In fact, they show nothing of the kind. They clearly show that he did not maintain possession, and you can't see the moment the ball hits the ground, but you can clearly see in photo one that the ball will hit the ground just before his elbow, and you can see in the second the equal and opposite reaction of the ball hitting the ground and bouncing out of his possession. And the video just makes it even more clear. Also, there are other angles in the other thread, that show the ball plainly on the ground and totally loose in the air after.

It's the magic bullet theory,

you can't see it hit the ground but then magically appears to have hit the ground
before his elbow strikes the turf

Frame 1 left hand on the ground, ball in right hand, making a move towards the ground

frame 2 left shoulder down which would include his elbow already on the turf once
again showing as in frame 1, ball in his hand, Ball now tucked into his elbow

frame 3 as seen in frame 2 ball in hand tucked in his elbow resting against
the side of his helmet 3 frames of conclusive proof no movement of the ball
and a theory that somewhere there was magical movement but zero proof
that it ever happened? I rest my case

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:07 pm**

Please!
Here it is from the opposite angle.:

Tell me that ball isn't touching the ground!

Here it is in super slo-mo :

Tell me that ball doesn't touch the ground, and then bounce up out of his control!

Here he is, ball completely out of his possession:

Tell me he never lost control!

[/Argument]

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:15 pm**

Deadskins wrote:Please!
Here it is from the opposite angle.:

Tell me that ball isn't touching the ground!

Here it is in super slo-mo :

Tell me that ball doesn't touch the ground, and then bounce up out of his control!

Here he is, ball completely out of his position:

Tell me he never lost control!

[/Argument]

Once again the focus is on what happens after he is already down according to the "rules"
....yet the one thing being ignored here is? where were his elbow and knee are prior? answer
on the turf as your little video shows pretty clearly, Now according to the rules this is a
clear case of down by contact

Section 2 Dead Ball

Article 1: Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:
(a) when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and touches the ground with any part of his body
other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner
touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent

Players are encouraged to advance the ball if they can (makes the game more exciting)
however it's not required due to the fact that as stated above his knee and elbow had
struck the turf at the same time, Now if he had slide on his back prior to his knee and
elbow on the turf and he had been bobbling it trying to maintain control? Then I'd say
NO catch, NO way, but that didn't happen here and it's obvious that the head ref was
not in position to make the judgement call of whether he had or had not made the
initial catch? The side judge ruled it a catch, even marked the spot where he had
been initially down at the point of contact...yet the theory which is wrong is what
the dumb believe is right

can you say brainwashed?

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:27 pm**

It's all been refuted so many times. He is not down by contact. Rather, he is down in the process of trying to complete the catch - and he must maintain control while doing so according to the rules, with or without contact from the defender. Again, why does Dez go to the ground if he can simply run in? Because he can't simply run in. He's falling, losing control on impact, and blowing another one.

Thanks, Trey.

But please recall ...

Just in case a conscious being is reading this, my 6 year old understands why Dez did not complete a catch according to the rules of the NFL.

An App is incapable of understanding things. It simply carries out code. This is the only conceivable explanation for the obtuseness and buffoonery of the pro-catch posts in this thread.

Insults and confusion to follow. Certainly not anything approaching a cogent argument.

For more on this see SMACK - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=39922&start=405

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:It's all been refuted so many times. He is not down by contact. Rather, he is down in the process of trying to complete the catch - and he must maintain control while doing so according to the rules, with or without contact from the defender. Again, why does Dez go to the ground if he can simply run in? Because he can't simply run in. He's falling, losing control on impact, and blowing another one.

Thanks, Trey.

But please recall ...

Just in case a conscious being is reading this, my 6 year old understands why Dez did not complete a catch according to the rules of the NFL.

An App is incapable of understanding things. It simply carries out code. This is the only conceivable explanation for the obtuseness and buffoonery of the pro-catch posts in this thread.

Insults and confusion to follow. Certainly not anything approaching a cogent argument.

For more on this see SMACK - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=39922&start=405

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9z2heG1M0

Makes you wonder how much was made in rigging this game??

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:27 am**

Didn't make me wonder and an app can't wonder.

Just confusion from the app so far. Dallas covered the spread in this game.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:15 am**

DarthMonk wrote:Didn't make me wonder and an app can't wonder.

Course not you believe everything they say is true

DarthMonk wrote:Just confusion from the app so far. Dallas covered the spread in this game.

Vegas certainly got in on it Dallas I am sure was getting pretty good odds that day...
and anyone laying some heavy money down, were about to hit pay dirt!! just shows
that corruption is everywhere

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:04 pm**

The TC App wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:Just confusion from the app so far. Dallas covered the spread in this game.

Vegas certainly got in on it Dallas I am sure was getting pretty good odds that day...
and anyone laying some heavy money down, were about to hit pay dirt!! just shows
that corruption is everywhere

^^^ Though an app can't be confused it can spew confused babble.

At any rate, the Packers were favored by 5.5. They won by 5. Therefore Dallas covers regardless of the ruling on the non-catch. So anyone betting on Dallas won either way and anyone betting on the Packers lost either way. Thus, the ruling had zero effect on how much money changed hands and who got it.

Insults and confusion likely to follow.

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:36 pm**

Still fails to prove that the NFL isn't corrupt and has games thrown to ensure that
whomever is looking for the biggest pay day, doesn't get what he/she laid down
on the game...and it's for this reason Monk your a fool!!! You fail to see that the
NFL isn't ashamed of it's corruption issue and that it goes unchallenged by anyone

as for the game in general? Dallas had chances earlier, made some stops on
defense but overall GB owned them, Had it been ruled right which was 1st
and goal at the 2 yard line, Forcing Dallas to score on the very next possession
I don't think they'd have won the game

Rogers was on fire and would have lead them down the field
for what's easily a game winning field goal, perhaps even puts
it in the endzone...but a catch is a catch, He didn't need to stop
sliding, roll over, extend out his arms and hands he needed to
to show that prior to his knee or elbow in this case both having
occurred at the same time the ball never moved...Once he's
down the play is over according to the rules

That rule might I add is continually ignored over and over
the mindless sheeple, Offer up the explanation for this as?
it's not relevant, it's because he didn't maintain possession
all the way through, So let's ask this question and see what
flimsy brainwashed answer we get

If your body is on the ground having either tripped or fallen
on your own where else does it have to go from there? The
answer is nowhere the human body is not some ventricular
force that can be easily moved by the laws of gravity yet
as the Warren commission wants us to believe

the magic bullet is the only viable answer to this corrupted
call - not buying it dude

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:34 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:As outlned in the NFL Case Book but organized in sequence:

Scenario 1:
A1 throws to A2 who grabs ball and is running upright in balance. A2 takes 2 steps in bounds and is then tackled. Ball comes out after a knee hits the ground.

Ruling: Completed pass and down by contact. Ball is spotted wherever it was when the knee hit. I think this is essentially how TexasCowboy sees the Dez Bryant play.

Scenario 2:
A1 throws to A2 who dives and grabs ball while airborne and body almost parallel to ground. Defender B1 makes contact with A2 while ball is firmly in his grasp and while still airborne. Body parts of A2 make contact with ground in following order. Left foot hits while ball still firmly grasped. Right foot hits while ball still firmly grasped. Left knee hits while ball still firmly grasped. Left elbow hits while ball still firmly grasped. Right elbow hits and ball pops out.

Ruling: Incomplete. A2 was going to ground in process of catching ball and must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Ruling is incomplete in this scenario whether there is contact with a defender or not.

TexasCowby - The 2nd scenario is correct. You cannot simply cite 2 feet and a knee and claim down by contact if the player is going to the ground in the process of catching the ball. This is why it matters WHEN THE FALLING BEGINS. Your only possible valid argument is that Dez had his balance and DECIDED to go to the ground. The rule specifically states "with or without contact" and if the contact (which you acknowledge and even bank on) occurs any time before a football move that follows a second step (which you also pointed out happens)

TexasCowboy wrote:his hands open for a split second, the ball is still in play at this point...Dez then secures
it..one foot comes down, the second foot? is now entangled with the defenders leg who
is trying to jar the ball free

, then the "going to the ground during the process" rule applies.

What it boils down to is that you have to claim Dez is not in the process of "going to the ground" in frames 3 and 4 below. It sure looks like he is to me (and every expert on the matter).

The Case Book even distinguishes between these 2 scenarios:

A2 is contacted by B between first and second steps sending him to the ground and A2

a) puts hand down, regains balance, lunges, ball comes loose upon impact. Ruling: Complete if in endzone, fumble if not in endzone.

b) puts hand down but does not regain balance, lunges, ball comes loose upon impact. Ruling: Incomplete.

It's the whole essence of the rule you are ignoring. It says that a guy can't simply get a non-hand down and get away with the ball popping out. He's gotta maintain control all the way through impact - not just until a non-hand hits.

](*,)

Thanks, Trey.

TexasCowboy wrote:Still fails to prove that the NFL isn't corrupt ...

Never said it did.

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:26 pm**

At least you have the guts Monk to acknowledge the league is corrupt so on
that point your pretty damn OK in my book, However I have not ignored the rule
but I challenge the rule because generally a non possession call is reserved for
someone who never has full possession prior to going to the ground and striking
it as in this case....so I agree he could and should have been cited as "down"
which is the right call as opposed to waiting for movement to stop and claiming
he's continuing the play when in fact that couldn't be the case

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:48 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:At least you have the guts Monk to acknowledge the league is corrupt Monk so on
that point your pretty damn OK in my book, However I have not ignored the rule
but I challenge the rule because generally a non possession call is reserved for
someone who never has full possession prior to going to the ground and striking
it as in this case....so I agree he could and should have been cited as "down"
which is the right call as opposed to waiting for movement to stop and claiming
he's continuing the play when in fact that could be the case

I did not acknowledge corruption. I said my prior post made no attempt to prove a lack of corruption.

He did not maintain control of the ball in the manner prescribed by the rules.

A catch does not occur in an instant. It takes a short amount of time. It is a process. If a player, during that process, starts going to the ground then we all know what he must do throughout impact. Dez did not do what he had to. Switching the argument to "down by contact" ignores this rule.

If you say you are challenging the rule then that is a different argument all together. The rule is the rule whether you like it or not.

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:23 pm**

I once again respectfully disagree with the ruling he can't very well be down and
continuing the play at the same time..It's either one or the other? If the rule says
he's down then come out and say "down" admit to the mistake the league needs
to stop contradicting themselves it reflects poorly on them at the end of the day

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:33 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:I once again respectfully disagree with the ruling he can't very well be down and
continuing the play at the same time..It's either one or the other? If the rule says
he's down then come out and say "down" admit to the mistake the league needs
to stop contradicting themselves it reflects poorly on them at the end of the day

You are putting the cart before the horse.

In your world a WR can grab a ball while airborne and horizontal, have an elbow hit, and now the play is over. Unfortunately for you and Dez, that's not the rule.

It's the whole essence of the rule you are ignoring. It says that a guy can't simply get a non-hand down and get away with the ball popping out. He's gotta maintain control all the way through impact - not just until a non-hand hits.

It's really that simple.

](*,)

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao

Re: How the NO Stars can win a super bowl LI rotflmao