The NFL is strictly entertainment. Like WWE.

[EasyThere Pilgrim]

The QB propelled the ball "forward" with his arm while maintaining control until released. That's an incomplete pass, by rule.

If that's the rule...then I have ZERO interest in watching football. Among other reasons.

I'm glad I didn't watch it. I used to never miss a Vikings game. But I haven't watched even 1 for about 3 years...only highlights.

 

[EasyThere Pilgrim]

It was absolutely an incomplete pass. I think there's a reasonable argument for intentional grounding, but yeah it wasn't a fumble.

Then a QB should NEVER fumble and NEVER be sacked.

 

[EasyThere Pilgrim]

The NFL is a TV show, and it's the most popular TV show in the country, by a mile. The NFL crushes every other league in ratings, revenue and popularity. And it's the most well run league in the country.

I've never understood the hate for Roger Goodell; I know, a lot of the legacy media wants to say "rich people BAD", etc but at the end of the day, Goodell is EXCEPTIONAL at his job. His job is to make the players rich, make the owners rich, grow the popularity of the game, et al.

Goodell is easily, and I mean EASILY, the best and most efficient/proficient Commissioner in any pro sport that we have. Whether anyone likes it or not, tough shit...

I guess it's ok if this is what the NFL has become. It might just be the usual case of the older generation not understanding what the young generation likes.

This in NO way resembles the NFL I grew up with. It's night & day different.

 

[EasyThere Pilgrim]

I'm willing to simply say it's not a game I recognize anymore.

Or have any interest in. And leave it at that.

 

[GopherGrit]

The QB propelled the ball "forward" with his arm while maintaining control until released. That's an incomplete pass, by rule.

In some quick, lazy Googling, here is the best I could find (they start showing it around 0:18 in ... I did not watch or listen to any further of their commentary):



I do not think what Stafford did should be allowed to qualify for such a rule, in the future. I think the rule should be reserved for (clear) attempts to be overhand throwing a football in a normal way. Shovel passes should not qualify, no matter how clear the attempt was.

 

[GopherGrit]

I love how they fake ACL, MCL, and concussions.

That Hutchinson injury was just part of the plan.

I think the gist of the OP is only talking about (terrible) calls by the refs. Not anything else.

 

[GopherGrit]

Thumbs on the scale for sure.

On KFAN this morning I caught a bit of some chatting with, I think it was Florio.

He brought up an interesting idea that might be somewhat counter to some desires to continue expanding replay and the ability to change or overturn calls on the field via replay:

the more you allow that, the more instances you allow to creep in of it looking like a message came in from some smoke-filled back room, to dictate what the call will be.

There's no transparency. People who hate the result start blaming it on conspiracies.


Not sure what I think about that overall, but it is an interesting point.

 

[Ope3]

I do not think what Stafford did should be allowed to qualify for such a rule, in the future. I think the rule should be reserved for (clear) attempts to be overhand throwing a football in a normal way. Shovel passes should not qualify, no matter how clear the attempt was.

I think the easiest fix would be on a pass, if the ball doesn't reach the line of scrimmage, it's spotted where it's released. That would put an end to the loophole.

 

[GopherGrit]

I think the easiest fix would be on a pass, if the ball doesn't reach the line of scrimmage, it's spotted where it's released. That would put an end to the loophole.

Good idea!

I would go a half step further (though no one may go with me) and say: shovel passes cannot qualify for a receiver being in the vicinity. If it's incomplete as a shovel and you were doing while being sacked, then it's automatically intentional grounding. If you complete it as a last ditch effort, well good for you. Passes out of bounds to avoid a sack must clearly not be shovel passes.

 

[TNGophfan]

I think the easiest fix would be on a pass, if the ball doesn't reach the line of scrimmage, it's spotted where it's released. That would put an end to the loophole.

Not sure thar works either. Are saying that if a running back or WR drops a perfect pass behind the line of scrimmage, the ball is marked where QB threw it? It would be the end of screens.

 

[TNGophfan]

Good idea!

I would go a half step further (though no one may go with me) and say: shovel passes cannot qualify for a receiver being in the vicinity. If it's incomplete as a shovel and you were doing while being sacked, then it's automatically intentional grounding. If you complete it as a last ditch effort, well good for you. Passes out of bounds to avoid a sack must clearly not be shovel passes.

Just complicates the rules and adds subjectivity to whether or not qb was actually being sacked, about to be sacked or wriggling out of a sack. I have no problem with what Stafford did being a pass, just need to tighten rules on "in the area" to negate intentional grounding.

 

[GopherGrit]

Not sure thar works either. Are saying that if a running back or WR drops a perfect pass behind the line of scrimmage, the ball is marked where QB threw it? It would be the end of screens.

You could say if the target was past the line of scrimmage, but then that doesn't fix what seems wrong with what happened to us.

 

[Ope3]

Not sure thar works either. Are saying that if a running back or WR drops a perfect pass behind the line of scrimmage, the ball is marked where QB threw it? It would be the end of screens.

Good point. I thought about that too, later. I (and for sure the NFL) do not want to restrict offense on those types of plays.

Maybe just enforce it when a defender has made contact or within a very short radius of the QB? There's no doubt a risk of making it too complicated/convoluted.