PostGame Thread Patriots Lose to the Dolphins 15-10, Drop to 1-4

[mike_usagisan]

Knowing we might be picking Top 3 in every Round might be tempting.

That's not an answer to why Jacksonville might not want him anymore. His numbers haven't been great, he's been injured and he's a big cap hit now and in line for a new contract.

And he's been linked to the Saints and the Chiefs... so he probably wants to go to a contender.

 

[PatsFan2]

That's not an answer to why Jacksonville might not want him anymore. His numbers haven't been great, he's been injured and he's a big cap hit now and in line for a new contract.

And he's been linked to the Saints and the Chiefs... so he probably wants to go to a contender.

We have $$$$$$ to burn unlike the Teams you mentioned.

 

[mike_usagisan]

We have $$$$$$ to burn unlike the Teams you mentioned.

How did that go with Ridley and Aiyuk?

 

[PatsFan2]

How did that go with Ridley and Aiyuk?

I get it I don't think they move Him the Jags look really thin along their OL with bodies.

 

[mike_usagisan]

I get it I don't think they move Him the Jags look really thin along their OL with bodies.

I think there are trade possibilities and we'll have to see if there are any decent free agents. But like the premium positions, if you want a good LT, you draft them high and you lock them up.

 

[PatsFan2]

I think there are trade possibilities and we'll have to see if there are any decent free agents. But like the premium positions, if you want a good LT, you draft them high and you lock them up.

I see us Double Dipping in the upcoming Draft at OT one being picked very early. We are pretty set at Guard but very weak at OT.

 

[mike_usagisan]

I see us Double Dipping in the upcoming Draft at OT one being picked very early. We are pretty set at Guard but very weak at OT.

Yeah, probably a vet, as well.

 

[dliverey44]

I really do not understand Maye not getting any play time in the SF or Miami games. I also see us drafting 2 OT's as well as 1 in FA and a Center

 

[jimnance]

That rule exists for every play everywhere on the field.
The heel didn’t land out of bounds after, it happened DURING
When you make a catch both feet must be in bounds. That includes every part of the foot that touches the ground. End zone, sideline, anywhere.

No you're wrong. Look at the tape in slo mo.It happened AFTER.

 

[jimnance]

No you're wrong. Look at the tape in slo mo.It happened AFTER.

When his heel hits the ground oob, his toes and ball of foot are no longer touching the ground. The reason it was called incomplete was because his heel hit the ground oob ?immediately after.
If there had been a few more seconds delay before his heel landed, it wouldve been ruled a td.
That is actually in the rules, which blew my mind.
It only exists on endzone plays, on sideline plays the rule doesn't apply

 

[Ring 6]

No you're wrong. Look at the tape in slo mo.It happened AFTER.

It was all one step, the toe hit, then the heel. If only the toe hit, then he pushed off and the heel landed on the next step it would have been a catch.


You aren’t arguing that part of the foot came down in bounds and part out of bounds, and that should be ok are you?

Think about a catch on the side line. Are you telling me if half the foot is out of bounds but his heel touched the ground before the toe it’s a catch? That’s not right.

 

[Ring 6]

When his heel hits the ground oob, his toes and ball of foot are no longer touching the ground. The reason it was called incomplete was because his heel hit the ground oob ?immediately after.
If there had been a few more seconds delay before his heel landed, it wouldve been ruled a td.
That is actually in the rules, which blew my mind.
It only exists on endzone plays, on sideline plays the rule doesn't apply

That’s not correct. How can there be a few more seconds from one part of your foot hitting the ground to the other part? Physics doesn’t allow that.

 

[Ring 6]

When his heel hits the ground oob, his toes and ball of foot are no longer touching the ground. The reason it was called incomplete was because his heel hit the ground oob ?immediately after.
If there had been a few more seconds delay before his heel landed, it wouldve been ruled a td.
That is actually in the rules, which blew my mind.
It only exists on endzone plays, on sideline plays the rule doesn't apply

Heel out while toe still on the ground

 

[jimnance]

Heel out while toe still on the ground

That shot definitely supports what you're saying.
I could've sworn his toes were off the ground when the heel hit.
Ok, nothing to argue about here.
But go read the rule and tell.me it isn't a stupid rule due to the "time" thing.
Just suppose I was right and his toes were off the ground when the heel landed. I think we both agree that should be a catch right? Not necessarily. If it was bang-bang and the heel hits right after the toes( but the toes are off the ground) then it's NOT a catch. Which is stupid. If he managed to dangle his leg in the air for just a few more seconds, then it IS a catch. That's stupid. Same thing with dragging the toes- if player lands one foot inbounds and drags the toes of tge otger foot inbounds on a sideline catch, the catch is good.
But if he does that in the endzone- NO CATCH ! That is a stupid stupid rule said I'm betting they will change it within an few yearsq

 

[Ring 6]

That shot definitely supports what you're saying.
I could've sworn his toes were off the ground when the heel hit.
Ok, nothing to argue about here.
But go read the rule and tell.me it isn't a stupid rule due to the "time" thing.
Just suppose I was right and his toes were off the ground when the heel landed. I think we both agree that should be a catch right? Not necessarily. If it was bang-bang and the heel hits right after the toes( but the toes are off the ground) then it's NOT a catch. Which is stupid. If he managed to dangle his leg in the air for just a few more seconds, then it IS a catch. That's stupid. Same thing with dragging the toes- if player lands one foot inbounds and drags the toes of tge otger foot inbounds on a sideline catch, the catch is good.
But if he does that in the endzone- NO CATCH ! That is a stupid stupid rule said I'm betting they will change it within an few yearsq

If his toes were off the ground when the heel landed then at some point his entire foot would have been off the ground making the heel a separate step, ie “the third foot”

That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along.
It’s a step. The second foot, in or out. If the toe touched then disengaged with the ground the next part to land, tie or heel, is the third step.
It’s the same anywhere on the field.
I think where you are getting mixed up is you can’t really do a “tie tap” moving backwards. The tie trails the heel. If he caught the ball over his shoulder heading toward the back of the end zone and the toe hit first, it’s good because either the heel is trailing, and therefore in bounds when it hits or it doesn’t hit until the next step.

 

[Pats2000]

I don’t understand how people are calling the most basic rule in the sport stupid. Both feet need to be in bounds. End of story. If part of your foot is out of bounds, you are out of bounds. If you run down the sideline with the ball and part of your foot is in bounds and part is out of bounds, what are you? Out of bounds of course.
If you land and only part of your foot touches the ground and it’s all in bounds you are in bounds. When you see a “toe tap” none of the foot lands out of bounds.

At some point the foot goes out of bounds on a toe tap. Two toes is considered a catch but not one toe and I've foot, it's ******ed

 

[Pats2000]

It's really not that dumb otherwise everytime we have sideline catch we would have to analyze the minutiae of wether his heel or toe hit down first.

This way whatever part of the foot you do get down you just have to be sure the whole print is inbounds.

I will admit that with better cameras and camera angles this might not be as hard as it once was when the rule was first written. maybe worth considering a rewrite to somehow account for something like today where it seems a little more exaggerated that the toe was clearly inbounds first but i'm not sure exactly how that would be worded and applied.

If he had hopped backwards and landed on his ass out of bounds it would have been a catch. He had two parts of his feet in bounds I while completing the catch. It's dumb

 

[Ring 6]

At some point the foot goes out of bounds on a toe tap. Two toes is considered a catch but not one toe and I've foot, it's ******ed

No. With a toe tap the toe is the only part of the foot that hits the ground on that step. That’s why it’s a TAP. Two feet in means the entire part of the foot that touches the ground. The entire foot doesn’t touch the ground in every step, like a toe tap.
I don’t understand what you think the rule should be. The only rule that would have made that a catch would be a rule that says if any piece of your foot is in bounds you are in bounds.

Toes don’t equal catches. Feet do. When the toe is the only part to touch that makes it the whole foot.

 

[dliverey44]

At some point the foot goes out of bounds on a toe tap. Two toes is considered a catch but not one toe and I've foot, it's ******ed

From what I understand the Toe drag would be considered a step so the next step can be out of bounds. Polk got his toe down but the heel came down out of bounds which completed the step. After he got the toes down if he could have lifted his leg up and fallen out of bounds the step was completed with the toe tap. The completion of the step is what made it an incomplete pass.

As the rule "heel-toe or toe-heel" is written it was a good call on Sunday. I think it is a bad rule though because sometimes the toes count as in bounds and sometimes, they don't. It feels contradictory to me, let it be toes or heels in bounds before anything lands out of bounds.

Edit: I am glad it was not a TD because it would have saved JBs job for another week because we more than likely win.

 

[Ring 6]

If he had hopped backwards and landed on his ass out of bounds it would have been a catch. He had two parts of his feet in bounds I while completing the catch. It's dumb

Yes if he jump off from the toe making it the only contact with the ground on that step it’s a catch. Why? Because his feet were in bounds. It wasn’t a catch because his foot came down out of bounds.