NFL Week 15 Thread

[BUTCH1]

Yeah, that call was brutal as hell. I read an article explaining why it was the right call but still brutal.

Yea, I guess, (by the rules) that little sideways spin as it hit the ground was considered "movement".

""A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession."
So yea, brutal, but by today's rules I guess it's correct. IMPO if a player has possession when he breaks the plane it should be a TD. That would eliminate all the gut-wrenching calls that seem to happen on a regular basis.

 

[Darwin333]

He didn't. He was done with the catch. He was on the ground, the ball was secured, and he lunged for the endzone to get a TD. The ball crossed the plane of the endzone. TD. Congratulations, refs, you gave the game, and potentially #1 seed, to the Pats.

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

I ain't saying that shouldn't be a catch but by the actual rules it sounds like they got it right. I think the rule is bullshit and that should have been a catch and a TD but the refs can only call it the way the rulebook says.

 

[glenn1]

Yea, I guess, (by the rules) that little sideways spin as it hit the ground was considered "movement".

""A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession."
So yea, brutal, but by today's rules I guess it's correct. IMPO if a player has possession when he breaks the plane it should be a TD. That would eliminate all the gut-wrenching calls that seem to happen on a regular basis.

Not a fan of either team but it looked like a catch to me. But then again every time this comes up the rule on what constitutes a "catch" never makes sense to me. If the Dez Bryant "not a catch" a couple years ago didn't lead to the rules being fixed there's no way in hell one like this would be since it's even less debateable than the Dez play and I'm not a fan of DAL or GB either.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Cowboys will win.

 

[purbeast0]

LOL @ Raiders WOW! Carr pulled an RG3.

 

[Chaotic42]

What a strange and exciting day of football. Also, good news! I lost my fantasy matchup. I'm done for the season and thus done forever. Fantasy was hurting my enjoyment of the game.

 

[13Gigatons]

LOL @ Raiders WOW! Carr pulled an RG3.

Can't believe it....the Raiders always find a way to lose the damn game!

PS: The refs were completely in the bag for the Cowboys.

 

[Capt Caveman]

You can hate the rule but the right call was made.

https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/942559627295764480

 

[TheVrolok]

He didn't. He was done with the catch. He was on the ground, the ball was secured, and he lunged for the endzone to get a TD. The ball crossed the plane of the endzone. TD. Congratulations, refs, you gave the game, and potentially #1 seed, to the Pats.

When you're making the catch while falling the catch isn't completed until AFTER you contact the ground.

 

[purbeast0]

The Steelers dude clearly didn't make a catch as he lost control as he went to the ground. You can see it shift around on the ground as he hits the ground. Had his hand been under the ball we wouldn't be discussing this.

If you think it was a catch then you simply don't know the rule, which is understandable because it seems like every week what is/isnt a catch changes.

 

[glenn1]

The Steelers dude clearly didn't make a catch as he lost control as he went to the ground. You can see it shift around on the ground as he hits the ground. Had his hand been under the ball we wouldn't be discussing this.

If you think it was a catch then you simply don't know the rule, which is understandable because it seems like every week what is/isnt a catch changes.

No, I get the part about "losing control as he goes to the ground." The part I don't understand (nor does really anyone else) is when "going to the ground" begins. The Calvin Johnson rule catch ruled not a catch (see below) is maybe the best example of this and comparatively this PIT play is an easy "non-catch" call according to the rule as it currently exists. Which IMHO is a stupid rule.

 

[96Firebird]

What is considered contact with the ground?

 

[dainthomas]

Nonsense rule is nonsense. It's a catch when it's caught. These kind of things only hurt the game.

And yay at the Vikes clinching the division! Glad to see one of my teams doing decent, at least.

 

[Darwin333]

What is considered contact with the ground?

con·tact
noun
ˈkänˌtakt/

1. 1.
   the state or condition of physical touching.

 

[Darwin333]

Nonsense rule is nonsense. It's a catch when it's caught. These kind of things only hurt the game.

And yay at the Vikes clinching the division! Glad to see one of my teams doing decent, at least.

The argument for rules such as this is that if they didn't have hard set rules like this then the refs would be making a ton of judgment calls and what is/isn't a catch could change just by which officiating crew you get.

 

[zinfamous]

"Football move" irrelevant, he FAILED to secure the ball. Romo + Nance both saw it, the Ref's both at the game and in NY saw it as well. Might seem like a bad deal but that's how they define a catch these days.

Yeah it was the correct call but it's always been a HORSESHIT rule, imo. ><

Seems to me if you keep your hand between the ball and the ground and you end up with it secure and in possession, it's your ball. I have no idea how the determine, in close fights to the ground between receiver and defender when just wait to see who stands up with the ball or ends up on the ground with "more possession," what the ball was doing during all that time.

 

[96Firebird]

con·tact
noun
ˈkänˌtakt/

1. 1.
   the state or condition of physical touching.

Sounds like he hit the ground with control of the ball then, his leg and elbow were clearing in contact with the ground while he still had control of the ball.

 

[KMFJD]

Pretty simple that it wasn't a catch

 

[Darwin333]

Sounds like he hit the ground with control of the ball then, his leg and elbow were clearing in contact with the ground while he still had control of the ball.

Since he was falling while catching the ball the catch isn't complete until after he hits the ground, therefore the ball hit the ground before the catch was completed.

 

[BoomerD]

How did Davis on the Panthers not get ejected for that hit?

2 game suspension for Davis.

 

[96Firebird]

Since he was falling while catching the ball the catch isn't complete until after he hits the ground, therefore the ball hit the ground before the catch was completed.

He hit the ground with the ball in his hands. Like I said, he had both a knee and an elbow down.

 

[zinfamous]

He hit the ground with the ball in his hands. Like I said, he had both a knee and an elbow down.

but he wasn't completely down. The knee doesn't count, you know, because this isn't college. He could have gotten up, even with that ball jostling, and kept running, so long as it never touched the ground.

What happened is different, however. He was touched before he could get up, thus he was down. And because the ball was not "fully in control"--moving in his hand as he was ruled down, it was not a possession. If he was never touched, and thus officially down, he could have secured the ball for the completion of the catch, as long as it never hit the ground.

Also, if he was "down because of a knee and an elbow" like you said, then it never could have been a TD anyway, because his knees touched down outside of the endzone--I think his elbow did too, right? He stretched and turned after his knees hit to break the plane of the endzone, and was touched after his knees hit and he had crossed the endzone line.

Basically, I think it's a bullshit rule but was called correctly due to all of the specific circumstances of that play. The ball jostling in his hand became an issue only because he was ruled down by contact, at the time of motion when he was ruled down.

 

[Bird222]

My thing is the ball broke the plane before it hit the ground so shouldn't the play be over? How long after the ball breaks the plane is the play still going on?

 

[Darwin333]

My thing is the ball broke the plane before it hit the ground so shouldn't the play be over? How long after the ball breaks the plane is the play still going on?

Again, the issue is that he was falling when he started to make the catch which means, per the rules, the catch isn't complete until after he hits the ground. If he had made the catch and then fell towards the endzone then yes, the play would have been over the moment the ball crossed the plane. You can argue with the rule but the refs made the correct call on the field.

 

[BUTCH1]

but he wasn't completely down. The knee doesn't count, you know, because this isn't college. He could have gotten up, even with that ball jostling, and kept running, so long as it never touched the ground.

What happened is different, however. He was touched before he could get up, thus he was down. And because the ball was not "fully in control"--moving in his hand as he was ruled down, it was not a possession. If we were never touched, and thus officially down, he could have secured the ball for the completion of the catch, as long as it never hit the ground.

Also, if he was "down because of a knee and an elbow" like you said, then it never could have been a TD anyway, because his knees touched down outside of the endzone--I think his elbow did too, know? He stretched and turned after his knees hit to break the plane of the endzone, and was touched after his knees hit and he had crossed the endzone line.

Basically, I think it's a bullshit rule but was called correctly due to all of the specific circumstances of that play. The ball jostling in his hand became an issue only because he was ruled down by contact, at the time of motion when he was ruled down.

Good explanation of a pretty bad rule. Even as a Pats fan I'd hate for that to happen to us, I think the competition committee, (which Tomlin is a member of), should look into changing this.