Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The tuck rule, continuation rule, complete the process rule (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
3C's
Footballguy
Works for me. Must be some sort of conspiracy.
3C's
Footballguy
I guess the refs and the former head of officiating need to get their eyes checked too. Doesn't matter how many feet, arms, legs, hips etc. hit the ground. In a continuous motion, while going to the ground, he lost possession of the ball.You need to get your eyes checked. Both feet hit the ground. His hip hit the ground. His butt hit the ground. He was facing the field of play. Then he started to turn towards the stands and get up. He went to a knee and put the ball on the ground. Only then did the ball come free.
I guess the refs and the former head of officiating need to get their eyes checked too. Doesn't matter how many feet, arms, legs, hips etc. hit the ground. In a continuous motion, while going to the ground, he lost possession of the ball.You need to get your eyes checked. Both feet hit the ground. His hip hit the ground. His butt hit the ground. He was facing the field of play. Then he started to turn towards the stands and get up. He went to a knee and put the ball on the ground. Only then did the ball come free.
The Man Who Met Andy Griffith
Footballguy
Yes, and all those steps happened within about 0.5 seconds. It is well known that you need to maintain possession not just until you hit the ground, but also for a meaningful period of time afterwards. I think people are confusing the criteria for a pass reception in the endzone with the criteria for a fumble. I have seen many, many plays where the player has control and hits the ground, and then loses possession, and this is not a reception.Not a fan of the rule, but it was called correctly.(Lions fan)
None of that changes the fact that he did not lose control of the ball when he was going to the ground.Yes, and all those steps happened within about 0.5 seconds. It is well known that you need to maintain possession not just until you hit the ground, but also for a meaningful period of time afterwards. I think people are confusing the criteria for a pass reception in the endzone with the criteria for a fumble. I have seen many, many plays where the player has control and hits the ground, and then loses possession, and this is not a reception.Not a fan of the rule, but it was called correctly.You need to get your eyes checked. Both feet hit the ground. His hip hit the ground. His butt hit the ground. He was facing the field of play. Then he started to turn towards the stands and get up. He went to a knee and put the ball on the ground. Only then did the ball come free.
(Lions fan)
mad sweeney
Footballguy
"Going to the ground" is a phrase, it is not literal. The ball came out of his hand a split second after it touched the ground. He's gotta show possession on the ground for it to be a catch. Abysmal rule, but properly called and backed up by former head of officials, replay and commentators.None of that changes the fact that he did not lose control of the ball when he was going to the ground.Yes, and all those steps happened within about 0.5 seconds. It is well known that you need to maintain possession not just until you hit the ground, but also for a meaningful period of time afterwards. I think people are confusing the criteria for a pass reception in the endzone with the criteria for a fumble. I have seen many, many plays where the player has control and hits the ground, and then loses possession, and this is not a reception.Not a fan of the rule, but it was called correctly.
(Lions fan)
He left it up to interpretation, both cases can be made. Next time he won't be so flippant about it.None of that changes the fact that he did not lose control of the ball when he was going to the ground.Yes, and all those steps happened within about 0.5 seconds. It is well known that you need to maintain possession not just until you hit the ground, but also for a meaningful period of time afterwards. I think people are confusing the criteria for a pass reception in the endzone with the criteria for a fumble. I have seen many, many plays where the player has control and hits the ground, and then loses possession, and this is not a reception.Not a fan of the rule, but it was called correctly.You need to get your eyes checked. Both feet hit the ground. His hip hit the ground. His butt hit the ground. He was facing the field of play. Then he started to turn towards the stands and get up. He went to a knee and put the ball on the ground. Only then did the ball come free.
(Lions fan)
So?
Steeler
Footballguy
The Steelers would have beaten the Raiders that year so it wouldn't really have mattered.
3C's
Footballguy
Jim Shwartz needs his eyes checked too..."The rule is if you are going to the ground in the process of making the catch, you need to finish with the football," coach Jim Schwartz said. "And we didn't finish with the football."Christo said:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...-call-was-right
And we all know what happens to coaches who complain about officiating--fines. I might lie to the press under the circumstances too.Jim Shwartz needs his eyes checked too..."The rule is if you are going to the ground in the process of making the catch, you need to finish with the football," coach Jim Schwartz said. "And we didn't finish with the football."Christo said:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...-call-was-right
3C's
Footballguy
Boy, didn't see that response coming from you. At all!And we all know what happens to coaches who complain about officiating--fines. I might lie to the press under the circumstances too.Jim Shwartz needs his eyes checked too..."The rule is if you are going to the ground in the process of making the catch, you need to finish with the football," coach Jim Schwartz said. "And we didn't finish with the football."Christo said:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...-call-was-right
Donnybrook
Footballguy
If I was an NFL coach, I would almost never challenge on the road. Very few calls are ever overtuned. It is just a waste of a timeout.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I take it you don't think timeouts are important.
Um, what call exactly are you saying Schwartz should not have challenged?The several people counting off the body parts that touched the ground before the ball came loose are demonstrating clearly that they do not understand the rule. All of that is completely irrelevant.Complain all you want about the rule, but the application was correct.Christo said:You need to get your eyes checked. Both feet hit the ground. His hip hit the ground. His butt hit the ground. He was facing the field of play. Then he started to turn towards the stands and get up. He went to a knee and put the ball on the ground. Only then did the ball come free.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be shocked if there was any correlation between calls being overturned and the challenging team being home or visitor.Not that it has any relevance to today's events.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I wasn't referring to this Johnson play and Schwartz definitely should have challenged - (Wasn't it in the last two minutes so he did not have to challenge.)I think as a general rule I would not challenge on more marginal plays. Just accept the play as stands and keep the timeout.
Ah, my bad. Considering the theme of this thread, I just assumed you were talking about that particular play, in which case, yes, it was under 2 minutes and could not be challenged by the coach.However, I still respectually disagree with your overall contention.I wasn't referring to this Johnson play and Schwartz definitely should have challenged - (Wasn't it in the last two minutes so he did not have to challenge.)I think as a general rule I would not challenge on more marginal plays. Just accept the play as stands and keep the timeout.I take it you don't think timeouts are important.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
This week there is a correlationVikes challenged the Kleinsausser catch - not overturned in New Orleans.Arizona challenged a Hightower down before the fumble - not overturned in St. Louis.
At risk of turning this into a stats class, that evidence comes woefully short of establishing a statistically-significant correlation.For starters, you have zero "home" datapoints.
Sample size is too small to find causation.
Last edited by a moderator:
jomar
Footballguy
if this is the rule, then this is a TD catch. he clearly maintained control of the ball after he touched the ground. so much control that he had it only in one hand. the play is over. what happens right after that doesn't matter. the rule used to disallow this would have been applicable if CJ bobbled the ball when he landed on his ###.
That is only one subsection of the rule and not the one that applies to this situation.
Your interpretation is incorrect.By your reading, the pass is complete if control is maintained when the player's first body part touches the ground. Clearly that's not correct since two feet down in bounds are required.The correct interpretation is that control must be maintained until the act of going to the ground concludes, no matter how many body parts touch.In this case the officials decided that the second hand, holding the ball, touching the ground was part of the act of going to the ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
jomar
Footballguy
I can't find any other subsections.......its pretty clear that this is the rule that deals with people going to the ground.
jomar
Footballguy
in this case, CJ clearly had two feet down and much more. he was on his ### on the ground with possession, clear possession of the ball with one hand holding it out. play over. the act of going to the ground is over when you are on the ground. he rolls over and attempts to use the ball to help him get up and loses the ball. it doesn't matter in this case. he was already on the ground with possession. this rule was misapplied. it is for players diving for the ball and it is for maintaining possession of the ball after you hit the ground. it is not for plays where the receiver clearly demonstrates possession of the ball after hitting the ground.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Wrong. This is exactly how it's been applied for years. They review rules each year and decide that if they're being misapplied, they tweak them. They haven't tweaked this one, so it's not being misapplied. Hopefully this will be a giant nail in the coffin for this rule to be finally changed because it's asinine that it wasn't a catch, as are all the catches this rule has overturned every year.The "possession" with two feet down etc... is used every time this rule is called and every time it's rebuffed as being the correct call according to rule. Get rid of the rule and let a great play be a great play.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently the officials saw things differently than you did. They saw the second (ball) hand going down as a continuation of the act of going to the ground.
Neofight
Footballguy
He was clearly getting up when he put the hand with the ball on the ground, using it to push himself up from the ground. Whether or not this is part of the "process" is up for debate, but he is clearly getting up. I think the rule was misinterpreted in a few different ways, but mainly because his left hand is clearly out of bounds after he slid a few inches and prior to him placing his right hand on the ground with the ball still in it. There seems to be a clear distinction in the rulebook regarding going out of bounds, and that left hand is being overlooked. Forget about the two feet, ### cheek and both hands on the ground prior to him losing possession on the way up; he had already touched the line.I guess the refs and the former head of officiating need to get their eyes checked too. Doesn't matter how many feet, arms, legs, hips etc. hit the ground. In a continuous motion, while going to the ground, he lost possession of the ball.Christo said:You need to get your eyes checked. Both feet hit the ground. His hip hit the ground. His butt hit the ground. He was facing the field of play. Then he started to turn towards the stands and get up. He went to a knee and put the ball on the ground. Only then did the ball come free.
You are wrong. You have to continue possession through the act of going to the ground. The ref made the judgement that he was still in the act of coming to the ground when the ball touched the ground and he lost control of it. The rule was properly applied, he should have held on to the ball.
CATCH: A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in
flight (See 8-1-3).
Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control
of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the
ball has touched the ground.
This is absolutely not clear.
schu
Footballguy
He had enough control to spin the ball away.
Neofight
Footballguy
Look again.ETA: We had it paused in HD, and his left hand was out of bounds when his right hand is still on the way down. TD.
Last edited by a moderator:
If his releasing the ball was intentional, he should have waited until he established possession.
FallenHero32
Footballguy
Bears Homer here, it was a catch. We didn't deserve to win that game and the rule needs to be changed. How can 2 feet, an arm, a hip and an ### not count for anything when lance moore can get the ball to barely break the plane and then lose control and it still counts in the superbowl is beyond me. (Granted, it was a 2 point conversion, but still, stupid.)
I have looked again.And FYI talking about his left hand isn't helping your case. That's completely irrelevant. This is clearly not an inbounds/out of bounds ruling. And putting a body part out of bounds certainly does not end the requirement to maintain possession throughout the act of going to the ground.
Again, counting body parts = not grasping the rule.
Neofight
Footballguy
Again, it is clear he is not going to the ground. How do you not see that? I believe there is a distinction in the rule that was shown on the first page of this thread, but I may have been reading someone else's interpretation of the rule. I will double check that.
FantasyTrader
Footballguy
Here's where I (and most rational people) take issue with the rule. His freaking A** is on the ground with the football. "Going" to the ground, implies you're A** still hasn't arrived at it's destination yet. When is the play over? Instead of trying to get up, does C.J. need to lay on the ground with the ball for 1? 2? 3 seconds?
I've looked at the replay many times and I think his right hand is going to the ground. More specifically, I think his downward momentum was such that his right hand, holding the ball, would have contacted the ground even if he wasn't in a hurry to get back up.Reasonable minds can disagree, but it is most certainly not clear either way.
Regardless, at a minimum Johnson was careless.
A** on the ground is definitely not a universal way to define the conclusion of going to the ground.All Johnson had to do was maintain possession until he was done falling down. The officials saw the right hand coming down as part of the act of falling down.
