**** Mike vrabel

[tyecopeland]

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/12/chi...edium=news_tab

Mike Vrabel savagely tweeted NFL's own rulebook at the league's officiating account to dispute Chiefs replay

Charles Curtis
December 6, 2021 7:02 am ET

Apparently, Tennessee Titans head coach Mike Vrabel was spending his free Sunday night watching the Kansas City Chiefs and Denver Broncos face off in the evening matchup.

Vrabel’s Titans were on a bye. And during Sunday Night Football, he watched as a review of a Travis Kelce incomplete pass — the Broncos thought it was a catch and fumble that would have resulted in a turnover — was upheld.

The NFL Officiating account explained that “the third element of a catch – time – was not met. Therefore, the ruling on the field stood as incomplete.”

But Vrabel responded with an image from the NFL rulebook with the definition of a catch. No other words. Just that image.

pic.twitter.com/eHBa6fVA1u

— Mike Vrabel (@CoachVrabel50) December 6, 2021

I guess he thought it was a catch? Former referee Terry McAulay explained further and said that Vrabel appeared to agree:

The third element is “performing an act common to the game”. An “additional step” and “tucking the ball away” are both noted as acts common to the game. Time may be a factor but is superseded if an actual act common to the game is performed. https://t.co/Y8BixoYBl8 pic.twitter.com/sWUvzeuI8x

— Terry McAulay (@SNFRules) December 6, 2021

That’s funny, isn’t it? A coach from another team tweeting a criticism at the NFL’s officiating account! Does that count as criticism? Could he get fined for that?

Also: Do I want more tweets from NFL head coaches like this? YES PLEASE!

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

it was a fumble

that is all

Your and idiot.

that is all

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

Imagine how insecure you must be to tweet about a game that doesn’t feature your team. He feels that 1-seed slipping away.

Imagine how insecure that you have to be to get upset over what someone that has nothing to do you tweeted about something that has nothing to do with you.

[ChiefBlueCFC]

mike vrabel and carl chaffed ass cheffers can tongue punch each others fart boxes

[JakeF]

Originally Posted by Dunerdr

I know im in the minority here but i like it. The refs should be publicly scrutinized. Theyve been ****ing awful this year. Theres 0 accountability, and more and more people have an excuse to say its rigged. It waters down the game when bad refs make bad calls and fans and teams are just stuck with it.

I agree with you. I don't care that Vrabel is complaining about the refs. He's going to get fined. The league will make sure and announce the fine, so it sends a message to the rest of the league. The public scrutiny won't continue.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Yeah, you're right. It was pretty close.

Thank you!

[Coochie liquor]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Thank you!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DTHOF]

Same thing happened to Hill earlier this year and they called it a fumble, I think against LAC. Glad they learned from that BS call and got this one right.

[Rainbarrel]

The name derives from vrábeľ - a Slovak dialect name of sparrow.

[ScareCrowe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

The first image shows Kelce with possession and one foot down, satisfying A and partial B (1 foot).

Second image shows Kelce with his second foot down and the ball tucked, satisfying the latter half of B (both feet) and a partial of C (tuck the ball away).

The last image, you can't see his left foot, but it hits the ground at pretty much the exact instant that the ball is knocked out of his hands.

At that point, you can argue that he'd secured possession of the ball, had both feet down, tucked the ball, and taken a third step. By rule, all of that could constitute a catch, hence the controversy.

in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

The rule clearly states that (a) & (b) have to happen before (c). Therefore the tuck can't be considered a "football move" if it happens before or even simultaneous to his feet coming down with control. In your 2nd pic I'm not even 100% sure his right foot is down yet & the ball is already tucked. With that being the case he still would have to make a football move, like a 3rd step, but the ball is out before he can.

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by ScareCrowe

in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

So do you have to catch a ball with your hands for it to be a completion? What if the ball gets wedged in the receiver's facemask? Does that count?
What if a receiver traps it between their thighs in the end zone? Is that considered a touchdown?

[ScareCrowe]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

So do you have to catch a ball with your hands for it to be a completion? What if the ball gets wedged in the receiver's facemask? Does that count?
What if a receiver traps it between their thighs in the end zone? Is that considered a touchdown?

Assuming that's the actual rule, yes they would have to be able to get it into their hands (or arms) before it touches the ground. Yes catching it their mask/thighs would count if they're able to pull it from their face mask/thighs with their hands before it touches the ground.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by ScareCrowe

The rule clearly states that (a) & (b) have to happen before (c). Therefore the tuck can't be considered a "football move" if it happens before or even simultaneous to his feet coming down with control. In your 2nd pic I'm not even 100% sure his right foot is down yet & the ball is already tucked. With that being the case he still would have to make a football move, like a 3rd step, but the ball is out before he can.

I grabbed this shot the instant his right foot hits the ground, which would be considered his second foot and fully satisfy the criteria of (b).

You can see that he is in the process of tucking it, as it moves further into the crevice of his elbow, and he removes the other arm from the ball in the other screen grab I posted. So the timeline is: ball hits hands and control is established-> one foot is down-> second foot is down-> ball is completely tucked.

You can argue the minutiae all you want. My entire point here was never that it was a fumble, just that it was ridiculous for a few of these dipshits to be in here calling people idiots for suggesting that it was a close call. The fact that we can debate this so thoroughly is proof that it is close, IMO.

[BlackOp]

Calling out Cheffers was a brilliant strategy 6 weeks before the post-season...he hasn't shown a propensity to be vindictive. *cough

Vrabel just ensured his teams early exit....they'll make an example out of him.

[ScareCrowe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I grabbed this shot the instant his right foot hits the ground, which would be considered his second foot and fully satisfy the criteria of (b).

You can see that he is in the process of tucking it, as it moves further into the crevice of his elbow, and he removes the other arm from the ball in the other screen grab I posted. So the timeline is: ball hits hands and control is established-> one foot is down-> second foot is down-> ball is completely tucked.

You can argue the minutiae all you want. My entire point here was never that it was a fumble, just that it was ridiculous for a few of these dipshits to be in here calling people idiots for suggesting that it was a close call. The fact that we can debate this so thoroughly is proof that it is close, IMO.

You're splitting hairs, because that's the only way you can make a marginal case that it could have been a fumble. You're basically saying that the ball settling an extra inch into his elbow & him removing his hand is a football move in itself. The move has to come after the feet come down, not be in the process of being made. He needed to take a 3rd step.

[AdolfOliverBush]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I grabbed this shot the instant his right foot hits the ground, which would be considered his second foot and fully satisfy the criteria of (b).

You can see that he is in the process of tucking it, as it moves further into the crevice of his elbow, and he removes the other arm from the ball in the other screen grab I posted. So the timeline is: ball hits hands and control is established-> one foot is down-> second foot is down-> ball is completely tucked.

You can argue the minutiae all you want. My entire point here was never that it was a fumble, just that it was ridiculous for a few of these dipshits to be in here calling people idiots for suggesting that it was a close call. The fact that we can debate this so thoroughly is proof that it is close, IMO.

It wasn't close. I actually laughed when they started to review it.

On a related note, that sort of play (judgement call) should not be reviewable.