You’ve got a lot of heat on this one.

You are inferring a conclusion based on what I said. I’ve said nothing like that. I think we can all agree, as would Mike Pereira, that spotting the ball is an inexact science, at best.

It is worth noting that in the case of the Eagles, where we agree that McNabb made enough progress to be awarded a first down, he was not receiving the ball and did not have to establish possession. I believe the officials ruled incorrectly in his instance.

As I said with Faulk, he needed to establish possession of the ball first — and then his forward progress was marked from where he possessed the ball — not from where he first touched the ball. I thought it was clear Faulk didn’t make it. Dude shoulda punted — then we could talk about the Eagles.

You tryin’ to label me with the Lumpen Buggetariat?

If Faulk had caught the ball cleanly, it would have been a first down. He bobbled the ball and therefore, was not granted “forward progress” to where he first makes contact with the ball i.e., where he ATTEMPTED the catch. The ball was spotted where he possessed the ball. That was the distinction.

At least he had the balls then and now.

but pressure can do things to the decisive process!

after so many years maybe that was a telling moment for the coach…when the pressure finally told on him and resulted in a decison that did not take in all the options at the moment and resulted as we saw.

but the Pats seemed to have made the first down. I thouht the ball was marked where it was because that is where the first leg of the receiver came down.

the receiver caught the pass over the first down marker, but driven back by the safety, in the air, his legs came down behind that marker…seemingly, exactly where the ball was marked. no first down!

I guess there is some rule….written or unwritten about forward momentum.

if there is and it is where the receiver caught the ball, in the air, then it is a first down.

if it is where his feet come down then no first down on sunday night for the Pats