• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

Around the NFL: News and Rumors

JO_75 said:
Wow..... Colin Kaepernick is now trying to ruin it for everyone else. Since he can't get his way, that means nobody plays! Kaepernick has filed a collusion grievance against the NFL and that could very well destroy the current CBA. The CBA can be terminated prematurely in the event of proof of a collusion. His lawyer for the case is a famous ambulance chaser lawyer whose client list includes Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and Chris Brown.

Mike Florio says once there was no interest by the Titans when Mariota went down, this pushed Kaepernick to pursue this. Considering we would have signed him before his girlfriend opened her mouth, I would say that's proof to shut this collusion case down in a heart beat. He had a job waiting for him, then his girlfriend cost him that job. He also ignored a call from the CFL who wanted to sign him but he and his agent never returned their call. Meaning does he still want to play football or is he more concerned about his cause going away if he was employed even by the CFL?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...validate-the-cba-through-collusion-grievance/
Click to expand...
That's what Ray Lewis claims, with regards to the Ravens signing Kaep. I tend to believe nothing Ray says. He's an egomaniac.
 
allblackraven said:
It isn't polite referring to me as "he" or "him" while I'm present :p

I didn't know about the Saints thing, was just pointing at that as a coincidence, thinking it might have been us.
Click to expand...
Adam Schefter said it was the Saints, but he's meeting with the Raiders and Cowboys, so it may have been the same deal if there were a deal in place to send him here.
 
So, if anyone watched any of the Jets Patriots game, Austin Sefarian Jenkins had a touchdown overturned and it turned into a touchback instead because he fumbled out of the end zone.

I know this is the right call, but I think it is the dumbest rule. If a player fumbles at the one yard line and it goes out of the end zone, why is it the other team's ball at the 20? Why is it not the offensive team's possession again or give it to the defense at the spot of the fumble? It makes zero sense to me.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
So, if anyone watched any of the Jets Patriots game, Austin Sefarian Jenkins had a touchdown overturned and it turned into a touchback instead because he fumbled out of the end zone.

I know this is the right call, but I think it is the dumbest rule. If a player fumbles at the one yard line and it goes out of the end zone, why is it the other team's ball at the 20? Why is it not the offensive team's possession again or give it to the defense at the spot of the fumble? It makes zero sense to me.
Click to expand...

yeah and it still kills me how cj got burned having just returned an int last year too - the play actually advanced their offence because they were backed up and suddenly got the ball on their own 20 with a new set of downs - crazy rule - i dont know what the fix is but the current rule is garbage... much like the catch rule, and not being able to review penalties
 
rossihunter2 said:
yeah and it still kills me how cj got burned having just returned an int last year too - the play actually advanced their offence because they were backed up and suddenly got the ball on their own 20 with a new set of downs - crazy rule - i dont know what the fix is but the current rule is garbage... much like the catch rule, and not being able to review penalties
Click to expand...
I think the fix is completely scrapping the rule and giving the ball to the team at the spot of the fumble.

If a player fumbles and the ball gets kicked out 10 yards downfield, the ball is put back at the spot of the fumble. Why is this not the case regarding the end zone?
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
I think the fix is completely scrapping the rule and giving the ball to the team at the spot of the fumble.

If a player fumbles and the ball gets kicked out 10 yards downfield, the ball is put back at the spot of the fumble. Why is this not the case regarding the end zone?
Click to expand...

yeah that's a good point - with regards to the ASJ fumble vs the pats - given that it was initially ruled a td im really not sure there was enough evidence to overturn it tbh - and it happened at such a key point in the game too
 
rossihunter2 said:
yeah that's a good point - with regards to the ASJ fumble vs the pats - given that it was initially ruled a td im really not sure there was enough evidence to overturn it tbh - and it happened at such a key point in the game too
Click to expand...
If you want to call it a fumble, what ever. But don't take away possession when they drive it to the 1. That's ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top