This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Two-point conversions are sexy.
There's several ways to rule a "catch" - two feet down, keeping in bounds, control of the ball, breaking the plane of the goal line, catching it through contact....In the end zone, if a player catches the ball he must complete the catch AND, if contacted or falling, retain possession as he hits the ground.Moore did this and the play was essentially over once he re-grabbed the ball while lying down and the ball over the goal line. The fact that the DB knocked the ball out of his hands with his knee doesn't matter - the catch was already over and so was the play.
Whats weird, is if that play happened in the middle of the field, it would have been incomplete!
I also think the key was that he was not initially touched, which is big. He went down to the ground on his own so at that point, moving the ball across the goalline was his "football move" and at that point it's a TD.
Does it matter if he is touched?I thought the rule was either way...touched or untouched you have to have the ball all the way to the ground and retain possession throughout going to the ground.While I hate the rule and plays like that are why (it was a catch IMO)...seems it was opposite of how its been called all year long on the reversal.
He did have possession thru the ground, he regained control after it bounced out...TOUCHDOWN BY RULE, end of play instantly....then the ball was kicked out.Different situation then all year as he caught the ball in the field of play, the crossed the GL.I think ur refering to plays the originate in the EZ.
Recall, though, that Moore was on the ground with posession.There are two things that confuse people about these rulings:
Totally disagree... it was CLEAR he was juggling the ball the whole way to the ground, I couldn't see ANY WAY they could argue he maintained control to the ground. It should have been ruled incomplete.
And no...its not the end of the play if he is still going to the ground...just like catches in the endzone its not over until you have control all the way to the ground.I did not see it as possession of the ball prior to going into the EZ. I saw it as still gaining possession of the ball as he went to the ground.Im referring to any play in or out of the EZ...you have to maintain possession throughout the catch going all the way to the ground...
Go watch the replay again...and yes, if you have possesion before u cross the GL, once u cross it is end of play instantly. Its kind of like sticking one hand out with the ball and hitting the pylon and losing the ball. TD instantly if you have possession before the goaline, which Moore did. His boddy hit in the field of play, so it is an out of endzone type interpritation to the rule.
I watched the replay...I agree with those saying "the act of falling" was not yet complete based on how they have called it all this year.That "act" was not complete IMO just by crossing the GL. Just as it has been ruled not complete by getting 2 feet down in the endzone on a play thrown into the EZ.I don't think he had "full possession" before crossing the GL because he had not completed going to the ground yet.Again, I hate the rule and think the way it was ruled after the replay is the way it should be on a play like that...I just don't think its consistent with how they have called those plays in other situations.
In the middle of the field he would have tucked the ball away instead of exposing the ball.
The schtick is so overplayed, it's to the point of embarrassing. Don't you want to give it a rest already?
The ball never touched the ground, though. Moore way lying sideways on the turf, ball in hands (possession), and untouched by a defender. Still a live ball -- Moore then reached the ball across the goal line. Conversion good.THEN the Colt defender kicks the ball out of Moore's arms. But it was AFTER the goal line was crossed. Just like stripping an RB 5 yards deep in the end zone after a walk-in TD.
The ball never touched the ground until the defneder kicked it.
Sorry but the rule is different.If that play happened totally in the endzone it would have been incomplete, as he did not control it thru the ground.But since he initially caught the ball then regained control while his body was in the field of play and extended it across the goal line, it ends the play, not allowing the ball to be kicked out.It is totally different and makes the discussion what it is, as people dont understand the rule.ETA: Does anyone remeber the interpritation of the Colston TD earlier this year when he almost went DJax before he got to the end zone....that is the interpritation as possession was in the field of play, then was loss after he crossed the GL. Play is dead instantly and make the rule what it is.
He caught it broke the plane, it came loose, he secured it, then as the defender's ankle came through his hands, it was knocked free. The only hard part is slow-mo is different than real time viewing. It happened fast, but he was down, with the ball in his hands (catch) and broke the plane (2 point). Can't see how it was not a catch and score.
I don't think the rule is different.A player must maintain possession whether in the endzone or out of it as far as I know.
Riiiight. The refs forced Peyton to radio that ball to Wayne also. Amazing the depth of the conspiracy.
Disagree. IMO people are getting confused on words/phrases like "maintain" and "through the ground". And the rule for possessing the ball on a catch is the same everywhere on the field. What is potentially different is when the play ends.What I meant was that the rule for establishing possession is the same everywhere. The receiver has to control the ball on the ground. Moore did that.What is different is that given his position on the field, he was able to break the plane of the goal line with the ball, ending the play... before the defender contacted him and knocked the ball loose. At other parts of the field, the play would have been live, so that would have been a fumble IMO... but on the other hand, Moore wouldn't have been reaching the ball forward like that at other parts of the field.Had Moore made the catch in the end zone, the play would have been over when he controlled the ball on the ground before contact with the defender, which is where I disagree with you.
Then why does play end once you cross the GL?Because pessession was already made, you need to make your possession in the EZ when you catch it in the EZ.I dont really get whats hard to understand.Lance Moore caught the ball, bobble or not, was deemed via replay to have possession... which inturn he reached accross the GL, (Whistle) ending the play instantly and not letting the kick effect the ball at all...hence crossin the plain. TDIf Lance Moore caught the ball in the endzone and came down in the endzone he would have to maintain possession thru the play which then would have allowed the kick of the ball to stand thru the play as the whistle would not have sounded until the whole play was over.The key is where the play is deemed to end, and the whistle ends it.Im not understanding the confusion.
I think you are confusing two things as one. Possession and when a play ends are two different things. Possession ends the play in the end zone. Possession does not end the play out of the end zone. That doesn't change what constitutes possession.If you think Moore's play was a legit 2 point conversion, which seems to be your stance, then you are saying he had possession. So had it happened in the end zone, it would have been the same result - a good 2 point conversion. Because the play ends at the moment of possession in the end zone.
wrong
This is what people are saying. Many don't agree he had full possession prior to crossing the GL and had to go to the ground all the way to have possession in our eyes based on how they have called that rule all year long.
This is how I saw it too. I was hoping it would be ruled incomplete as I was pulling for the Colts, but I have to agree that they got the call correct.
I disagree with the bolded, that's the point. You can stop frame a dropped ball right where both of the WRs hands touch it - I guess that makes it a catch and fumble right? This is the problem with replay... you can't slow a play down because it may make things appear to be that simply are not. In real time speed, there is no way anyone thinks he caught that ball. If he can't hold it for more than a split second, it's not a catch or a completion etc.
At no point did the ball go to the ground before the defender kicked it. Moore had established possession by getting a firm grip on the ball away from his body (after the on-the-way-down bobble). Keep in mind that the defender kicked the ball out well after the conversion was made good.
The ball was kicked out after the goal line was crossed.You don't have to hold the ball for a three-count to establish possession. Who's says a second isn't long enough?
I'm not the only one who thinks it, trained professional referees do too.So its all moot, because it was ruled a TD!All I gained from this is some watch football, and some of us understand it.
In super slow motion yes...but part of possession is going all the way down and maintaining it.The bobble in real time plus the kickout is why people are disagreeing with him having possession.At no point did the ball go to the ground before the defender kicked it. Moore had established possession by getting a firm grip on the ball away from his body (after the on-the-way-down bobble). Keep in mind that the defender kicked the ball out well after the conversion was made good.
OK, but the bobble ended at a given point. Then Moore reached the ball across for the 2 points. Only THEN did the kickout occur.
The rule was he had possession in bounds then he crossed the GL, if you thought he had possession is irrelivent.The question was, explain the ruling.In super slow motion yes...but part of possession is going all the way down and maintaining it.The bobble in real time plus the kickout is why people are disagreeing with him having possession.At no point did the ball go to the ground before the defender kicked it. Moore had established possession by getting a firm grip on the ball away from his body (after the on-the-way-down bobble). Keep in mind that the defender kicked the ball out well after the conversion was made good.
That's ####### funny.
Exactly. You can be standing in the endzone have the ball thrown to you establish posession and quickly slam the ball down. That's a TD. There's no difference between that and Moor's rolling around and having the ball for that second as long as the ball crosses, whcih it did.
Fixed!
This is wrong. The refs ruled he had completed the catch 'through the ground', then broke the plane. Breaking the plane ended the play. Had he been in the endzone and ruled to have completed the catch 'through the ground' the play would have ended immediately and subsequent actions would have been irrelevant. Of course, the refs explanation included saying his motion to extend the ball showed that the fall had finished, and he wouldnt have had reason to do that in the endzone - therefore this situation never happens in the endzone.The rule was he had possession in bounds then he crossed the GL, if you thought he had possession is irrelivent.The question was, explain the ruling.In super slow motion yes...but part of possession is going all the way down and maintaining it.The bobble in real time plus the kickout is why people are disagreeing with him having possession.At no point did the ball go to the ground before the defender kicked it. Moore had established possession by getting a firm grip on the ball away from his body (after the on-the-way-down bobble). Keep in mind that the defender kicked the ball out well after the conversion was made good.
If the catch was in the endzone it would have been ruled incomplete, its funny that football fans who are submersed in the game can see it any other way honestly.
Everyone is trying to state why they though it should be a catch, sorry but i was explaining the Ruling, without an opinion...
And to answer the above poster, yes the call was right and perfectly done in my opnion and by rule.
They need to establish how you determine when 'through the ground' actually happens. The rule as written is clearly ambiguous.
