Arian Foster TD reversal (1 Viewer)

[jackdubl]

Everyone saying he took steps with the ball or his knee hit, you're all wrong. He grabbed the ball low. The defender didn't really even touch him, if you watch the replay closely. But Foster was falling down on his own. His forward lean was so much that he basically fell forward just after grabbing the ball. Not that it would have mattered. He caught the ball as he was going to the ground, but he DROPPED it when he put it on the ground. Surely everyone complaining doesn't think he MEANT to let the ball pop out of his hand when he put it on the ground. He should have rolled over and maintained possession. He lost possession so no catch. You guys must think that a receiver who bobbles the ball as he runs out of bounds also caught it for a TD. Hey, it never hit the ground, right?

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

Everyone saying he took steps with the ball or his knee hit, you're all wrong. He grabbed the ball low. The defender didn't really even touch him, if you watch the replay closely. But Foster was falling down on his own. His forward lean was so much that he basically fell forward just after grabbing the ball. Not that it would have mattered. He caught the ball as he was going to the ground, but he DROPPED it when he put it on the ground. Surely everyone complaining doesn't think he MEANT to let the ball pop out of his hand when he put it on the ground. He should have rolled over and maintained possession. He lost possession so no catch. You guys must think that a receiver who bobbles the ball as he runs out of bounds also caught it for a TD. Hey, it never hit the ground, right?

If he is not in the air, and has gotten three feet down in bounds already (in the endzone no less) while not bobbling the ball, how is he still in the process of making the catch?

 

[Shutout]

Bad call. Difference in this case is:Calvin caught the ball in the end zone and was subject to the rule.

Huh? To repeat, since you didn't get it the first time: THE END ZONE IS IRRELEVANT. The relevant issue is whether the player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, regardless of where it happens on the field. I really don't understand why this is so hard for so many to grasp. You all are confusing different rules.

I think what you're not understanding in your reply to my post and some others is that you are viewing this as a catch and a catch only. If that is the case, then , yes, placement on the field means nothing. However, if you read my full post (and what some others have said), we saw this as a catch and THEN a move to the end zone. THAT is what changes things because (as I exemplified), if it is a catch, then he has to maintain posession throughout. However, if he has ALREADY CAUGHT it and he is moving into the endzone (usually by running but in this case by twisting or falling to the endzone), then the play should end once the football breaks the plane.Clearly, some see it as a catch while others see it as a catch and then a move (probably the Foster owners see it as the latter). Either way, the refs saw it as a catch and applied the rule that seemingly everyone doesn't really like. In the end, I think this over analyzation is bothersome. It just slows things down and encourages coaches to challenge everything under the sun. To date, I have yet to see any of the kids in the neighborhood cry out that their opponent "didn't maintain possession all the way through....lalala". It should be common sense. You make a heck of a catch in the endzone like Calvin did and your opponent doesn't stop you, that's a touchdown. Maybe the problem is that reebok doesn't make kangaroo pouches built into the uniforms so that players can stash them in there to demonstatrate "possession". Its gone to the extreme and buzzkills common sense good plays.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

In my opinion Foster established possession before getting into the endzone. He established and then crossed the goalline. Anything that happens after should be irrelevant.

This was totally different than the Calvin play because Calvin had to establish possession while already in the endzone

and he did not complete the catch (according to the rule book).

If I were a ball carrier I'd hold the ball until the PAT is complete to ensure that the play can't be reversed. lol

Hello, is this thing on?

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control

of the ball after he touches 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,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground,

the pass is complete.

I understand the rule. I was commenting that it is stupid because the play should be dead when a player makes a catch and crosses the goalline. It was the right call according to the rule but it is stupid.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

[jackdubl]

Everyone saying he took steps with the ball or his knee hit, you're all wrong. He grabbed the ball low. The defender didn't really even touch him, if you watch the replay closely. But Foster was falling down on his own. His forward lean was so much that he basically fell forward just after grabbing the ball. Not that it would have mattered. He caught the ball as he was going to the ground, but he DROPPED it when he put it on the ground. Surely everyone complaining doesn't think he MEANT to let the ball pop out of his hand when he put it on the ground. He should have rolled over and maintained possession. He lost possession so no catch. You guys must think that a receiver who bobbles the ball as he runs out of bounds also caught it for a TD. Hey, it never hit the ground, right?

If he is not in the air, and has gotten three feet down in bounds already (in the endzone no less) while not bobbling the ball, how is he still in the process of making the catch?

So anyone who catches the ball while falling can just let go of it, I guess, since it's already a catch in your eyes. Or is it just that you believe falling flat on your face is different that falling forward while you're still moving? So you tell us, genius, at what point in falling have you now caught the ball and we can disregard that you lose it when you hit the ground?

 

[moondog]

Stupid rule but also a stupid play by Foster using the ball to break his fall.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

Everyone saying he took steps with the ball or his knee hit, you're all wrong. He grabbed the ball low. The defender didn't really even touch him, if you watch the replay closely. But Foster was falling down on his own. His forward lean was so much that he basically fell forward just after grabbing the ball. Not that it would have mattered. He caught the ball as he was going to the ground, but he DROPPED it when he put it on the ground. Surely everyone complaining doesn't think he MEANT to let the ball pop out of his hand when he put it on the ground. He should have rolled over and maintained possession. He lost possession so no catch. You guys must think that a receiver who bobbles the ball as he runs out of bounds also caught it for a TD. Hey, it never hit the ground, right?

If he is not in the air, and has gotten three feet down in bounds already (in the endzone no less) while not bobbling the ball, how is he still in the process of making the catch?

So anyone who catches the ball while falling can just let go of it, I guess, since it's already a catch in your eyes. Or is it just that you believe falling flat on your face is different that falling forward while you're still moving? So you tell us, genius, at what point in falling have you now caught the ball and we can disregard that you lose it when you hit the ground?

Genius? Hey, thanks! Always nice to find a loyal fan in the Shark Pool.

 

[GregR_2]

So I ask you. How many steps does a receiver have to take with possession before it becomes a non-issue if the ball comes loose on the ground?

Here is the exact wording of the relevant parts of the rule. Note it makes no mention of "a football move". Note that it makes no mention of "taking steps." Note also that it does specifically mention "going to the ground".

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advancethe ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) ifa player, who is inbounds:(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground;and(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other thanhis hands.Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considereda loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that therehas been a loss of possession.If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his bodyother than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,it is not a catch.Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act ofcatching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain controlof the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. Ifhe loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground,the pass is complete.

I think the issue is did he make a catch clean and under balance, and then in later action unrelated to the catch went to the ground... or did he make a catch while not having his balance and then went to the ground as part of the catch. I would imagine as the rule reads, if you overextend and are off balance as you make a catch, stumble for 8 steps without regaining your balance, and eventually hit the ground... that's still going to the ground. So I don't think there is any answer to how many steps do you have to take before it's a catch. I think the answer is you have to show you aren't going to the ground by showing you have your balance. Making a football move might help display you have your balance, but if you, say, extend the ball while still looking off balance I'm not sure it would be enough.I think the ref decided that Foster was off balance as he caught the ball and it was possible/likely he would end up on the ground. And if so I agree with him, that's how it looked. If I had to bet whether he falls or keeps his feet after just seeing the first half of the play and not knowing the outcome, I'd say it's at best even money on if he ends up on the ground.If Foster clearly shows he has his balance, then after gets hit and goes to the ground, it's a touchdown. I don't think he showed that going to the ground wasn't part of the catch though. He came close, but the hit from the defender stopped him from regaining his balance and he put the ball down to try to stay up.Much as I wish this weren't the case.Edit to add: Well, have heard Pereira's thing about the second act so I guess extending the ball across the line is enough to say that you aren't going to the ground. Nevermind, heh.

 

[jackdubl]

Clearly, some see it as a catch while others see it as a catch and then a move (probably the Foster owners see it as the latter).

This is the debate, right here. Every other argument people are making here is off point. Of course, the rule is clear as day: it's not a catch plus a move if you are going to the ground in the act of catching, no matter if you actually grabbed the ball near the top or near the bottom of the fall. It's all a catch. Now, as a Foster owner, my first instinct when I saw the play live was textbook Calvin Johnson play. I tried to convince myself during the replays that I was actually seeing a catch, then a move where he had so much forward lean that he falls forward. But the more they showed the play, there was no point where the catch stopped and the falling started. It was all one fluid motion.I was most surprised that Foster didn't know better. I'll go back to my earlier comment: Players need to stop treating the ball like a piece of their equipment and treat it like it's the ball.Sorry about the "genius". Got carried away.

 

[Steelfan7]

Correct call on a bad rule.

 

[Choke]

Someone needs to throw and UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT penalty on the entire league.

As much as they want to turn this into nothing more then a business... its a still (or at least used to be) a sport.

Same goes for college football and its BcS crapola.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Sorry if this is a honda - didn't see a thread on it.Didn't have the sound on. How the hell did they overturn this? No question of possession. Dude caught the ball, took 2 full huge strides with possession, reached out 1 handed with full control over the goal line and landed in the end zone. Ruled a TD on the field. He was not in the motion of catching a pass and going down to the ground. Horrific call. How many steps with possession does a receiver have to take for it not to matter if the ball pops out when they hit the ground? 2? 10? 50? WTF is this league coming to?

They overturned it to screw with me and the subscriber contest. If that counts, I'd be sitting 7 points higher than I am right now.

 

[Das Boot]

When will players learn just to wrap up the freakin' ball?

The rule is what the rule is and until it changes, secure the ball with 2 arms and don't get the ref any reason to question the play.

 

[CA_7]

Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating from 2004-09, believes Arian Foster should have been awarded a touchdown for a three-yard catch that was overturned on review Sunday. Pereira points out that Foster reached out with his right hand to break the plane, making the "second act" that the league has cited in the past. If the NFL wasn't such an unstoppable juggernaut, the league would be losing credibility for its ridiculous catch rules. How can the players and fans understand what constitutes a catch when the referees don't even know how to interpret the rules?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=5469

 

[ourmanflint]

Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating from 2004-09, believes Arian Foster should have been awarded a touchdown for a three-yard catch that was overturned on review Sunday. Pereira points out that Foster reached out with his right hand to break the plane, making the "second act" that the league has cited in the past. If the NFL wasn't such an unstoppable juggernaut, the league would be losing credibility for its ridiculous catch rules. How can the players and fans understand what constitutes a catch when the referees don't even know how to interpret the rules?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=5469

I could have won by 50 instead of 44...damn you zebras!

 

[Ghost Rider]

Stupid rule, and even by it, that still should have been a touchdown. If the Texans get that TD there, who knows how the rest of the game plays out? The NFL botched it yet again.