OT: Thanksgiving day games 11-24-22
- Thread starter BullheadCardFan
- Start date
yeah 40-3 is hard to explain. I'm not convinced that dallas are super bowl contenders, but it's hard to imagine that the Vikings are elite when they lose like that at home.Didn’t look too dangerous last week when they got trounced 40-3 at home.
Dayman
ASFN Addict
Josh Allen in November
Passing
Rating: 75.9
Comp %: 61
Yards: 985
YPA: 6.7
TD/INT: 4/5
Sacks: 12
Rushing
Att: 28
Yds: 255
Avg: 9.1
TDs: 3
Fumbles/Lost: 4/1
Passing
Rating: 75.9
Comp %: 61
Yards: 985
YPA: 6.7
TD/INT: 4/5
Sacks: 12
Rushing
Att: 28
Yds: 255
Avg: 9.1
TDs: 3
Fumbles/Lost: 4/1
juza76
ASFN Icon
Statically Many great qb's are struggling a bit this year
OP
OP
And he held onto the ball the entire time
It never hit the ground
At the least it should have been down at the 1
Terrible rule and needs to be adjusted
Hand was under the ball and never touched the ground
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
Last edited:
OP
OP
Walt Anderson on reversal of Hunter Henry touchdown: Ball touched ground and player lost control
Here’s how Anderson explained the decision to pool reporter Mike Reiss of ESPN.com: “He was going to the ground, the ball ended up touching the ground and then he lost control of the ball in his hands.”
Why wasn’t Henry ruled to have possession before the ball hit the ground?
“Because as he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball upon contacting the ground,” Anderson said. “The term that’s commonly used is ‘surviving the ground.’ A lot of people refer to that. So, as he’s going to the ground, he has the elements of two feet and control, but because he’s going to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball when he does go to the ground.”
As Reiss pointed out to Anderson, Henry had two hands on the ball.
“Well, if he had maintained control of the ball with two hands, even if the ball were to touch the ground, if you don’t lose control of the ball after it touches the ground, that would still be a catch.”
The decision raises an interesting question as to the application of the “clear and obvious” standard. The ruling on the field was a catch for a touchdown. For replay review, here’s the proper question: Was the ruling on the field clearly and obviously wrong?
There are two separate components to the “clear and obvious” standard in this case. It was indeed clear and obvious that Henry lost possession when he landed and re-secured possession short of the end zone. That would have given New England the ball on the one-inch line, fourth and goal.
But was it clear and obvious that the ball struck the ground and moved sufficiently to make it not a catch at all?
Remember, reversals are supposed to happen only when it’s clear and obvious. Fifty drunks in a bar would have to agree, as it’s often described.
In this case, it seems clear and obvious that it wasn’t a touchdown. But it doesn’t seem clear and obvious that it wasn’t a catch; Henry’s hand was at all times under the ball. Thus, New England arguably should have had the ball just outside the Minnesota end zone, fourth and goal
82CardsGrad
7 x 70
He’s been playing hurt (something up with his throwing elbow), the entire month…
Yea he has a partial tear in his elbow ligament. The one that when it’s a complete tear a player needs Tommy John surgery. Yet he still managed to not miss a game and be there for his team the whole month of November.
Cbus cardsfan
Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 21,463
- Reaction score
- 7,632
I'd like to see D'Andre Swift in a Cards uni next year. He gets nagging injuries but the guy is ultra talented.
“Nagging” ?????
that guy is literally always hurt….. can’t help the club from the tub.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
