Jump to content
SportsWrath
Renegade

How is this not a damn catch?!??!

Recommended Posts

He scored two plays later otherwise it'd be a pretty hot topic today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He scored two plays later otherwise it'd be a pretty hot topic today

 

He scored two plays later otherwise it'd be a pretty hot topic today

This should be a hot topic regardless, that's what irks me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly after that whole batted ball out of the endzone that the Lions experienced, Ford there has been raising all sorts of hell about penalties being review-able.

 

Since he's butt buddies with Mara I expect something to happen.

 

Hope they include PI calls or else there is no point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get it either. He caught it in the field of play turned and reached it over the goal line. Play should of been over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get it either. He caught it in the field of play turned and reached it over the goal line. Play should of been over there.

Yeah, clear touchdown.

 

Like fish said, for those who watched, what was the explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they attempt to explain it?

 

I didn't watch the game, I just saw this online and I said wtf.

 

I really would love to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least it wasn't the Giants on this one, we seem to be the specialist on that kind of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck the Falcons, but I can't figure out how that wouldn't be a catch:

 

1) he took a couple of steps;

2) he pulled it into his body;

3) he then took it away from his body so it crossed the goal before his knees hit;

4) he rolled pulling the ball back into his body, and landed on his back with the ball in his hands and on his chest.

 

Unless his hands have some sort of gravitational pull, I don't see how he could have done all that without having control of the ball.

 

I'm not sure how much more he would need to do to demonstrate "football moves." Make a sammich while holding the ball, maybe?

 

Have to wonder how defining a catch has managed to be so fucking complex. Meanwhile, other teams get the benefit of the doubt when they touch the ball with their fingertips (I'm looking at you, Green Bay--don't think I forgot about 2011).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The explanation is that he didn't establish himself as a runner before going to the ground. The tackler was taking him down as he made the catch, therefore, even though he turned his body and stretched out the ball and can do all sorts of other things, if he is going to the ground he has to maintain possession through the ground. The only way to avoid this is to become a runner BEFORE going to the ground, then the play is over the exact moment any part of the ball crosses the front edge of the goalline. I don't agree with the rule but they are calling it consistently (I think) and that is the expectation I have for the officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link doesn't show the end of the play.... does the receiver drop the ball immediately after the clip ends, when he hits the ground? If so, its clearly not a catch.

 

The rule is clear. If the receiver is going to the ground before he establishes possession and becomes a runner, then he has to maintain control of the ball throughout impact with the ground.

 

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for so many of you to understand. It couldn't be simpler.

 

Its a good rule, it eliminates almost all the old ambiguity about what is or isn't a catch. The problem isn't the rule.... its all you dumbasses that lose your shit because you don't know the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The explanation is that he didn't establish himself as a runner before going to the ground. The tackler was taking him down as he made the catch, therefore, even though he turned his body and stretched out the ball and can do all sorts of other things, if he is going to the ground he has to maintain possession through the ground. The only way to avoid this is to become a runner BEFORE going to the ground, then the play is over the exact moment any part of the ball crosses the front edge of the goalline. I don't agree with the rule but they are calling it consistently (I think) and that is the expectation I have for the officials.

 

The official count of people here who know the rules is 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how it happened: the NFL refs are fucking terrible.

 

I don't understand how this is news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link doesn't show the end of the play.... does the receiver drop the ball immediately after the clip ends, when he hits the ground? If so, its clearly not a catch.

 

The rule is clear. If the receiver is going to the ground before he establishes possession and becomes a runner, then he has to maintain control of the ball throughout impact with the ground.

 

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for so many of you to understand. It couldn't be simpler.

 

Its a good rule, it eliminates almost all the old ambiguity about what is or isn't a catch. The problem isn't the rule.... its all you dumbasses that lose your shit because you don't know the rules.

 

lmao are you fucking joking? you see him on the ground in the endzone and the ball is CLEARLY secured in his chest/hands.

 

Are you blind, old man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an edited clip, obviously the work of a fan with a bone to pick. Why else would he present it in slow motion, and also remove the last few seconds from the video? LOL... but sure, lets all get bent out of shape over an obviously edited video. Sheesh.

 

There isn't actually enough information in the link to determine one way or the other if its a catch or not. But I know that if the ball popped out in that next instant after the clip ends, then that is definitely not a catch. (Slow motion is extremely misleading when evaluating a reception because it can give the illusion of control where none may exist - the play must be watched in game speed).

 

I know I'm in the minority that its a good rule, but that's just a matter of opinion. Unfortunately the rule negates some plays that 'look' like catches, but I like the rule because the officials are making their judgement based on strict criteria instead of the aesthetics of the play. I think all you who hate this rule, that's your opinion and that is fine, I get it, but if you're in that camp then you've abdicated your right to complain about ambiguity in NFL officiating. You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

lmao are you fucking joking? you see him on the ground in the endzone and the ball is CLEARLY secured in his chest/hands.

 

Are you blind, old man?

 

I'm neither old nor blind. I'm just much, much smarter than you. ;)

 

...okay, maybe not. But I do know the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm neither old nor blind. I'm just much, much smarter than you. ;)

 

...okay, maybe not. But I do know the rule.

 

:P

 

You most likely know the rules more than I do. Even if the link doesn't extend, it looks like he's on the floor of the endzone with the ball secure in his grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an edited clip, obviously the work of a fan with a bone to pick. Why else would he present it in slow motion, and also remove the last few seconds from the video? LOL... but sure, lets all get bent out of shape over an obviously edited video. Sheesh.

 

There isn't actually enough information in the link to determine one way or the other if its a catch or not. But I know that if the ball popped out in that next instant after the clip ends, then that is definitely not a catch. (Slow motion is extremely misleading when evaluating a reception because it can give the illusion of control where none may exist - the play must be watched in game speed).

 

I know I'm in the minority that its a good rule, but that's just a matter of opinion. Unfortunately the rule negates some plays that 'look' like catches, but I like the rule because the officials are making their judgement based on strict criteria instead of the aesthetics of the play. I think all you who hate this rule, that's your opinion and that is fine, I get it, but if you're in that camp then you've abdicated your right to complain about ambiguity in NFL officiating. You can't have it both ways.

Well said. I am not a big fan of the rule but you are correct when you say it has brought less ambiguity in determining catch/non-catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:P

 

You most likely know the rules more than I do. Even if the link doesn't extend, it looks like he's on the floor of the endzone with the ball secure in his grasp.

 

I'm not sure anybody knows every single rule in the NFL rule book, but I know that one. If I recall correctly, I got all bent out of shape when Calvin Johnson deliberately laid the ball on the ground in celebration, prior to completing the process. Aesthetically, that was a TD if there was ever a TD. That was what prompted me to dig into the rules, only to discover that, technically, the refs got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't mind the rule. It gives the defender a chance to break the play up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...