burningmetal

So do I. I heard John Lynch (who was absurdly annoying throughout the entire broadcast) and Mike Pereira try to explain the rules to us for the billionth time, and they were all completely missing the point, just like the refs on the field. They kept saying how he didn't complete the process to the ground, but he had two feet, then two knees on the ground and reaches out for the first down when the ground finally knocks it out.

That is possession and a football move. It's not the same as a guy leaping for a ball and coming straight down and having the ball pop out on impact. He had clear control of the ball and REACHED.

How is it that when a guy catches the ball standing upright, catches the ball and takes two steps with some type of "football move", and the defender knocks it out, it's called a fumble. Thus declaring that the receiver had control... But if the receiver gets two feet and two knees (the equivalent of at least two steps) and makes football move in reaching out, but the ball gets knocked out by the ground it is suddenly incomplete?

Did any of that even make sense? There are rules in what makes a catch that contradict other rules that make a catch. And beyond that, it seems like no rule involving a catch is interpreted the same way twice in a row. The NFL remains a joke.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.