Holmes catch/TD/no catch (1 Viewer)

[Bayhawks]

OK-as I watched the game last night, I couldn't get over that play. I know that if a WR catches the ball in the air, he must retain control over the ball as he goes to the ground. My question is why did that apply here?

Holmes went up, caught the ball, was contacted by the Raven defender, THEN TOOK 2 STEPS (plus put his hand on the ground to help him dive) before he dove towards the end zone and had the ball come loose.

Isn't a catch complete when the WR controls the ball, and makes a football related move? I would assume taking 2 steps and a dive towards the end zone with the ball tucked in his arm would constitute a "football related move."

BTW-I hate how players dive towards the goal line with the ball extended-if you lose control short of the line, you are risking a loss of the ball & a total momentum reversal. I could understand it if it was 4th and goal, but otherwise, wouldn't the safer play be to take the ball on the 1 yard line and try to punch it in?

 

[Black Box]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

 

[harryhood]

I was under the impression that AFTER the two steps and AFTER the arm braced himself and AFTER the ball crossed the plane of the goal line, that the possession was moot and it was a touchdown.

I know you have to control the ball through the catch but it looked like enough had happened before loosing the ball to say he had possession. Guess not, glad it didn't cost the better team a win.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

So, in the first Pitt/Bal game there was a non-TD catch that they amazingly reversed to a TD, then in the 2nd game there was a TD catch that they reversed to a non-TD.

That was a catch. He took 3 steps PLUS a hand on the ground. I know what the rule was...but this was a catch.

By the way, I hate Pit AND Bal.

 

[Bayhawks]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them) There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

 

[Sheriff66]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them)

There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.

There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.

Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

Exactly, I was when they called it incomplete

 

[treat88]

It was a catch and a TD.

Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.

He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.

Refs simply blew this one.

Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

 

[Bayhawks]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them)

There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.

There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.

Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

Exactly, I was when they called it incomplete

Yeah, I was annoyed when Phil Simms (I think it was him) kept saying during the replay that it had to be overturned. He never made mention of the fact that he didn't go to the ground as part of the catch, but well after the fact.

 

[Bayhawks]

It was a catch and a TD.Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.Refs simply blew this one.Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

Has the NFL came out and said the refs were right or wrong? The usually do that with "controversial" calls. I havent' found anything.

 

[Da Guru]

I saw the same thing happen last year..I forget who it was.

From what I understand of the rules. Had Holmes went down on the one it would have been a catch and a ground caused fumble, because Holmes scored I believe the rule is he had to have control on the ground.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Godsbrother]

It was a catch and a TD.Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.Refs simply blew this one.Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

Has the NFL came out and said the refs were right or wrong? The usually do that with "controversial" calls. I havent' found anything.

It usually takes a day or two for them to review the play.

 

[golfguy]

Phil Simms (I think it was him)

is a tool. please get him off the air. nantz sounds great compared to him. and buck and aikman were aweful throwing mcnabb under the bus yesterday any chance they could. it was ridiculous.

 

[Black]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

I think I get it, but can't see how this rule really works normally.What about McGahee's fumble on the hit that knocked him out? He caught the ball, took a step or two, then got hit and it jarred the ball loose.Holmes clearly had possession, two steps, then dove for the endzone. He streches out so that only his hand pushes off the ground before he hits the ground and the ball comes loose (ie, his knees, elbows, hips did not hit the ground first...)

 

[Black Box]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them) There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

First off, let me get out of the way that I agree that is should have been a catch + TD.What I am saying is that if his knee had hit first and the ball was in his possession, he would have been down. If his knee hit as he lunged and THEN the ball hit the ground, jarring it loose, I believe they would have ruled that the ground caused the fumble -- good catch.I'm not a ref or anything, but that is my take on it

 

[videoguy505]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them) There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

First off, let me get out of the way that I agree that is should have been a catch + TD.What I am saying is that if his knee had hit first and the ball was in his possession, he would have been down. If his knee hit as he lunged and THEN the ball hit the ground, jarring it loose, I believe they would have ruled that the ground caused the fumble -- good catch.I'm not a ref or anything, but that is my take on it

That's logical, but, unfortunately the rules don't agree. Still need to make a "football move", and if 2 steps wasn't enough, the knee hitting probably wouldn't be either.I've seen a receiver make a catch on the sideline where he does the "two tip-toes inbounds" fall, but then after he hits the ground out of bounds, the ball comes loose, and they say no-catch. The "Ground causes the fumble" only applies when hitting the ground is a result of contact by a defender.

 

[Black Box]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them) There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

First off, let me get out of the way that I agree that is should have been a catch + TD.What I am saying is that if his knee had hit first and the ball was in his possession, he would have been down. If his knee hit as he lunged and THEN the ball hit the ground, jarring it loose, I believe they would have ruled that the ground caused the fumble -- good catch.I'm not a ref or anything, but that is my take on it

That's logical, but, unfortunately the rules don't agree. Still need to make a "football move", and if 2 steps wasn't enough, the knee hitting wouldn't be either.

We need to get that IBM supercomputer to process this alternate reality.But you guys are probably right. I'm just trying to find some justification in my mind as to that crazy call.

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

Actually... I felt that he had 3 feet down. Both feet were on the ground when he caught and possessed the ball and then he lifted and stepped forward with his right foot to start the lunge... while in the air he put his left hand down and stretched 'with possession' the ball across the goal line. He landed on the line and the ball jarred loose. The theory that 'Phils bad for the Ravens' Simms came up with is just dead wrong. Unfortunately, the referee seemed to misinterpret the rule as well. By their interpretation of the rule Holmes could conceivably make a catch while being hit at the 15 yard line and 'stumble' 14 yards, dive into the endzone, have the ground cause a fumble, and rule it incomplete!! They finished that drive with a FG but had the game come down to the Steelers losing by 3 pts or less it could have been 'another' David Garrard oopsie apology from the NFL!!

And what was the deal with the 'rough & tough' Baltimore Ravens D feeling as though they needed to 'flop' to change field position (Trevor 'Cheap Ticket' Pryce I'm looking at you!!) Especially after he had illegally 'picked' Kemo's nose with hands to the face! Lord knows that they struggled to stop Ben on 3rd and 4 or 5 all night long.

I realize that Mitch 'Divots' Berger 'flopped' and drew a roughing the punter penalty but come on... he's a punter and that is his job to flop. Besides... the Ratbirds have gotta know that you have a better chance at good field position if you just let him kick it without applying any pressure!! He'll screw up for ya!!

And can't ANYBODY teach Willie to catch the ball? That is unbelievable!!

One guy that deserves a lot of credit but probably isn't getting it is Nate Washington. He stepped into a role that he doesn't practice and he did alright with it. The only real mistake that I saw was the route he ran on 3rd & 1 when Ray Ray nearly picked off a pass! Ben expected something different but sometimes that is what happens when you are in a new position.

 

[gman74]

It was a catch and a TD.Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.Refs simply blew this one.Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

Once again you are wrong. It is just like when receiver catches the ball along the sideline and gets knocked out of bounds and while going to the ground loses control of the ball it is and has always been an INCOMPLETE PASS end of story. I was like when they originally call it a catch.

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

It was a catch and a TD.

Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.

He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.

Refs simply blew this one.

Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

Once again you are wrong. It is just like when receiver catches the ball along the sideline and gets knocked out of bounds and while going to the ground loses control of the ball it is and has always been an INCOMPLETE PASS end of story. I was like when they originally call it a catch.

Come on dude, honestly?! Your first thought was "How can they call that a catch?!!" I call your bluff! At the VERY LEAST it looked like a good catch at normal speed!! It took replay for them to have any question about that!!Even Ed Reed "the best player to ever put on the pads!! - sarcastic" thought it was a catch!! In fact, I don't recall anyone on there defense really calling for it to be incomplete!!

 

[parrot]

It is a quirk in the rules. If his knee had hit before/during his lunge, it would have been a catch.

No, it wouldn't. That's my problem. The rule they used says the player has to control the ball to the ground, so even if his knee had hit on the dive, they would have had to rule it incomplete if the ball came out on the dive. My point was, I believe the rule was mis-interpreted, or they used the wrong rule. (I'm going to paraphrase what I believe the rules state-if anyone has the exact rule, please feel free to post them)

There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground; I have heard the announcers describe it as "he must get up with the ball." This is why a WR who catches the ball on the sidelines, with both feet in bounds is not given a catch if he gets knocked down and drops the ball when he hits the ground. I understand that rule, and I accept it. I believe that is the rule that they used in the game last night.

There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count. So if a player has control, but the split second after he has control, before he can tuck the ball, or run, or make a cut, the ball gets knocked loose, than it is not a catch. I understand this rule, and I accept it, as well. This is the rule I believe they should have used.

Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone. When he dove for the line, he extended the ball. The ball broke the plane, and then hit the ground, jarring it loose from his grip. He made 4 "football" moves: 2 steps, hand on the ground for balance, diving for the end zone. How can the officials rule that incomplete?

First off, let me get out of the way that I agree that is should have been a catch + TD.What I am saying is that if his knee had hit first and the ball was in his possession, he would have been down. If his knee hit as he lunged and THEN the ball hit the ground, jarring it loose, I believe they would have ruled that the ground caused the fumble -- good catch.

I'm not a ref or anything, but that is my take on it

That's logical, but, unfortunately the rules don't agree. Still need to make a "football move", and if 2 steps wasn't enough, the knee hitting probably wouldn't be either.I've seen a receiver make a catch on the sideline where he does the "two tip-toes inbounds" fall, but then after he hits the ground out of bounds, the ball comes loose, and they say no-catch. The "Ground causes the fumble" only applies when hitting the ground is a result of contact by a defender.

I thought they did away with the "football move" thing? From Ed "Yes that Ed Hochuli" Hochuli:

“The one (change) I think is the most dramatic is not really a rule change, it’s just an interpretation change from the competition committee that deals with what is a completed catch,” Hochuli said.

Beginning this season, a receiver that gets two feet down and has control of the ball has a reception.

Traditionally a player needed to make “a football move” after a catch to have it classified a reception. Now, a quick hit from a defender could result in a fumble.

“Sometimes there’s a situation where there were three steps and the ball would come out and it would be correctly ruled an incomplete pass,” Hochuli said. “So, the receiver gets a second foot down, gets hit and the ball comes lose -- we would have a fumble rather than an incomplete pass.”

Notebook: Officials outline rule changes

 

[Black]

There is a rule that says that if a player goes up for a catch and goes to the ground in the act of making the catch, he must control the ball to the ground....There is another rule that says a player must gain control of the ball and make a football related move for the catch to count...Holmes caught the ball, a Raven was right near him, and tried to make the tackle. When the Raven did this, Holmes TOOK AT LEAST 2 STEPS, PUT HIS HAND ON THE GROUND TO STAY UP, and then dove for the end zone...

Perfect. That's what I was looking for. I could see that the rules discussed were correct, but somehow the announcers (and refs?) juxtaposed those two rules. Plus the note above about Hochuli with the two steps makes alot of sense.It just didn't make any sense to me...he caught the ball, he ran, he dove.

 

[CrossEyed]

It was a catch and a TD.Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.Refs simply blew this one.Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

Once again you are wrong. It is just like when receiver catches the ball along the sideline and gets knocked out of bounds and while going to the ground loses control of the ball it is and has always been an INCOMPLETE PASS end of story. I was like when they originally call it a catch.

Thanks for your completely objective, unbiased opinion.

 

[CrossEyed]

Phil Simms (I think it was him)

is a tool. please get him off the air. nantz sounds great compared to him. and buck and aikman were aweful throwing mcnabb under the bus yesterday any chance they could. it was ridiculous.

I don't know what's gotten worse in the NFL, the officiating or the announcing.

 

[gman74]

It was a catch and a TD.Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.Refs simply blew this one.Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

Once again you are wrong. It is just like when receiver catches the ball along the sideline and gets knocked out of bounds and while going to the ground loses control of the ball it is and has always been an INCOMPLETE PASS end of story. I was like when they originally call it a catch.

Thanks for your completely objective, unbiased opinion.

Not a problem, PM me if you need anymore

 

[treat88]

Once again you are wrong. It is just like when receiver catches the ball along the sideline and gets knocked out of bounds and while going to the ground loses control of the ball it is and has always been an INCOMPLETE PASS end of story. I was like when they originally call it a catch.

Credibility zero. Football acumen lagging only slightly behind.

 

[gman74]

Once again you are wrong. It is just like when receiver catches the ball along the sideline and gets knocked out of bounds and while going to the ground loses control of the ball it is and has always been an INCOMPLETE PASS end of story. I was like when they originally call it a catch.

Credibility zero. Football acumen lagging only slightly behind.

Can you debunk that is or is not the rule? or are you just going to be a homer

 

[Cookiemonster]

Steeler fan here, and I believe the correct call was made. Holmes had only one foot down before the contact that caused the catch to go to the ground and the "through the ground" rule important. Had Holmes had two feet down pre-contact and not fallen on his own, he would have established possession and the play would have been a TD. Since he didn't have possession before the contact that forced him to the ground, he needed to maintain possession and didn't. The whole "football move" is no longer existent.

 

[Modog814]

I think the rule is:

If there is any contact between the defender and receiver, as the receiver is catching the ball, that causes the reciever to "go to the ground", he must maintain possession all the way through hitting the ground. The fact that he stumbled, and he did stumble, he did not run 2 steps, was part of the defender bringing him to the ground. Personally I think the correct call was made. Although I could see how it was questionable and would have been totally ok way it if it was called the other way. It's a judgement call, as in "Did the defender cause the player to go to the ground or did the player take two steps and then be brought to the ground?" The ref thought it was the first option, (I agree).

All in all I thought it was a pretty well officiated game. The only outright absolutely terrible call was the roughing the punter call (which before anybody says it had no affect on the outcome, it absolutely could have). Other than that I thought the refs did a fair job.

 

[gman74]

Steeler fan here, and I believe the correct call was made. Holmes had only one foot down before the contact that caused the catch to go to the ground and the "through the ground" rule important. Had Holmes had two feet down pre-contact and not fallen on his own, he would have established possession and the play would have been a TD. Since he didn't have possession before the contact that forced him to the ground, he needed to maintain possession and didn't. The whole "football move" is no longer existent.

Ding Ding Ding we have a Steeler fan that knows the rules.

 

[treat88]

gman74 you are the least credible, most biased poster on this board.

Regardless of my input, you will not change your opinion. That fact aside....

Here is a link to a copy of the 2007 NFL rulebook as per this site:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...ost&id=1750

Page 51 Forward Pass Supplemental notes includes the following two applicable definitions:

A.R. 8.10 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball

when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.

Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the

ground in order to complete the reception.

A.R. 8.11 A runner (in full possession of the ball) is contacted by an opponent while he is

attempting to gain yardage. The contact causes the runner to hit the ground, at which

time the ball comes loose.

Ruling: Play is dead when the impact jars the ball loose. No fumble.

As per A.R. 8.10 Holmes would have had to be in mid-air for the possession to the ground rules to be in effect. He clearly wasn't.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ntEQfJgag

A.R. 8.11 is the correct rule which applies to this situation.

Unlike you, if I am incorrect I would love to see the evidence and will admit it if I am wrong.

I'm a Steelers fan and their biggest critic. If it's a Holmes drop show me.

 

[Cookiemonster]

gman74 you are the least credible, most biased poster on this board.

Regardless of my input, you will not change your opinion. That fact aside....

Here is a link to a copy of the 2007 NFL rulebook as per this site:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...ost&id=1750

Page 51 Forward Pass Supplemental notes includes the following two applicable definitions:

A.R. 8.10 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball

when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.

Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the

ground in order to complete the reception.

A.R. 8.11 A runner (in full possession of the ball) is contacted by an opponent while he is

attempting to gain yardage. The contact causes the runner to hit the ground, at which

time the ball comes loose.

Ruling: Play is dead when the impact jars the ball loose. No fumble.

As per A.R. 8.10 Holmes would have had to be in mid-air for the possession to the ground rules to be in effect. He clearly wasn't.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ntEQfJgag

A.R. 8.11 is the correct rule which applies to this situation.

Unlike you, if I am incorrect I would love to see the evidence and will admit it if I am wrong.

I'm a Steelers fan and their biggest critic. If it's a Holmes drop show me.

You answered your own question. Holmes was not in full possession of the ball (secured the ball with two feet down) when the hit/contact occured that caused him to go to the ground making the "through the ground" an issue.

 

[treat88]

You answered your own question. Holmes was not in full possession of the ball (secured the ball with two feet down) when the hit/contact occured that caused him to go to the ground making the "through the ground" an issue.

Again, trying to be very objective here. I don't see that at all. He clearly has possession prior to the hit.

 

[gman74]

gman74 you are the least credible, most biased poster on this board.

Regardless of my input, you will not change your opinion. That fact aside....

Here is a link to a copy of the 2007 NFL rulebook as per this site:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...ost&id=1750

Page 51 Forward Pass Supplemental notes includes the following two applicable definitions:

A.R. 8.10 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball

when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.

Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the

ground in order to complete the reception.

A.R. 8.11 A runner (in full possession of the ball) is contacted by an opponent while he is

attempting to gain yardage. The contact causes the runner to hit the ground, at which

time the ball comes loose.

Ruling: Play is dead when the impact jars the ball loose. No fumble.

As per A.R. 8.10 Holmes would have had to be in mid-air for the possession to the ground rules to be in effect. He clearly wasn't.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ntEQfJgag

A.R. 8.11 is the correct rule which applies to this situation.

Unlike you, if I am incorrect I would love to see the evidence and will admit it if I am wrong.

I'm a Steelers fan and their biggest critic. If it's a Holmes drop show me.

You answered your own question. Holmes was not in full possession of the ball (secured the ball with two feet down) when the hit/contact occured that caused him to go to the ground making the "through the ground" an issue.

You sir have just been again again and again on this board kind of sad. Treat88 I admittedly and not a Steeler fan but, I will say its a Dirty hit or that is not a catch with any other team the same as I would with the Steelers. You bring nothing but incorrect info and homer ism to every conversation

 

[treat88]

You sir have just been again again and again on this board kind of sad. Treat88 I admittedly and not a Steeler fan but, I will say its a Dirty hit or that is not a catch with any other team the same as I would with the Steelers. You bring nothing but incorrect info and homer ism to every conversation

If that's what you get from my posts that's fine.

Incorrect but fine.

We don't need to bore folks with a series of personal attacks. Anything else you've got can go to PM's.

 

[renesauz]

Steeler fan here, and I believe the correct call was made. Holmes had only one foot down before the contact that caused the catch to go to the ground and the "through the ground" rule important. Had Holmes had two feet down pre-contact and not fallen on his own, he would have established possession and the play would have been a TD. Since he didn't have possession before the contact that forced him to the ground, he needed to maintain possession and didn't. The whole "football move" is no longer existent.

Ding Ding Ding we have a Steeler fan that knows the rules.

This is correct. It's a bad rule poorly implemented. The contact that forced him towards the ground occured BEFORE two feet down, before possession was complete. He could have stumbled another ten feet and then dropped it, and it wouldn't matter, according to the rule.I think this is one rule that almost certainly gets revisited and likely tweaked in the off-season.

 

[theplayer11]

It was a catch and a TD.Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.Refs simply blew this one.Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

a TD/? You do realize the ball came loose before it broke the plane.. The rule is the rule..a WR has to control the ball the whole time..as explained by the commentator.

 

[renesauz]

Here is a link to a copy of the 2007 NFL rulebook as per this site:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...ost&id=1750

Page 51 Forward Pass Supplemental notes includes the following two applicable definitions:

A.R. 8.10 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball

when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.

Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the

ground in order to complete the reception.

A.R. 8.11 A runner (in full possession of the ball) is contacted by an opponent while he is

attempting to gain yardage. The contact causes the runner to hit the ground, at which

time the ball comes loose.

Ruling: Play is dead when the impact jars the ball loose. No fumble.

As per A.R. 8.10 Holmes would have had to be in mid-air for the possession to the ground rules to be in effect. He clearly wasn't.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ntEQfJgag

A.R. 8.11 is the correct rule which applies to this situation.

Wrong. You're using the 2007 rulebook (instead of 2008, which is not readily available for public viewing.) This rule was addressed and updated last off season. This type ofplay was a point of emphasis going into this season. I think that they simply failed to envision a scenario where a stumbling reciever gains 4-5 yards while going to the ground.

 

[Cookiemonster]

You answered your own question. Holmes was not in full possession of the ball (secured the ball with two feet down) when the hit/contact occured that caused him to go to the ground making the "through the ground" an issue.

Again, trying to be very objective here. I don't see that at all. He clearly has possession prior to the hit.

Please don't take this as "jumping on" you with gman. I almost cringe (as a Steeler fan) at the thought of agreeing with him.Holmes only had one foot down prior to the contact, so had not established possession. He is still concidered airborne at that point. Contact came prior to the 2nd foot coming down and the ball being secured, making it a catch. The contact forced Holmes to the ground, and came prior to possession being established, so Holmes had to maintain through the ground.

If it makes it easier to visualize, think of the same scenario, but going out of bounds. If Holmes had made the catch as he did, but only had one foot down before going out of bounds (instead of contact/going to the ground), would it be a catch? Holmes DID NOT have possession before heading to the ground, and if the catch is made in the act of going to the ground, possession HAS TO be maintained THROUGH the ground.

 

[treat88]

You answered your own question. Holmes was not in full possession of the ball (secured the ball with two feet down) when the hit/contact occured that caused him to go to the ground making the "through the ground" an issue.

Again, trying to be very objective here. I don't see that at all. He clearly has possession prior to the hit.

Please don't take this as "jumping on" you with gman. I almost cringe (as a Steeler fan) at the thought of agreeing with him.Holmes only had one foot down prior to the contact, so had not established possession. He is still concidered airborne at that point. Contact came prior to the 2nd foot coming down and the ball being secured, making it a catch. The contact forced Holmes to the ground, and came prior to possession being established, so Holmes had to maintain through the ground.

If it makes it easier to visualize, think of the same scenario, but going out of bounds. If Holmes had made the catch as he did, but only had one foot down before going out of bounds (instead of contact/going to the ground), would it be a catch? Holmes DID NOT have possession before heading to the ground, and if the catch is made in the act of going to the ground, possession HAS TO be maintained THROUGH the ground.

Fair enough. Like I say, I can own up to it when I am wrong.You seem to be right on this one gman74. My apologies.

 

[Cookiemonster]

This is correct. It's a bad rule poorly implemented. The contact that forced him towards the ground occured BEFORE two feet down, before possession was complete. He could have stumbled another ten feet and then dropped it, and it wouldn't matter, according to the rule.I think this is one rule that almost certainly gets revisited and likely tweaked in the off-season.

There are a few rules that could be "technically" taken advantage of that need to be tweaked like this one. Fielding a punt, the return man bobbles the ball and gets lit up by the coverage team. Personal foul on the return team for not allowing the returner an opportunity to field the punt. So technically, the return man could juggle the ball all the way down the field without being touched, securing the ball once he reaches the endzone. Also, the tuck rule. As long as the passer kept pump-faking, he could never be sacked. Unless you want an already over-wordy rulebook getting even more over-written, you have to deal with little quirks like that.

 

[Cookiemonster]

You seem to be right on this one gman74. My apologies.

I don't know about you treat88, but I need a long, hot shower and to scrub out my mouth with bleach.

 

[parrot]

Also, the tuck rule. As long as the passer kept pump-faking, he could never be sacked.

Of course he could be sacked, there's no rule about sacking a QB in the act of passing. I guess you could argue that he couldn't fumble, but a string of pump-fakes are going to require that the arm go back as much as it goes forward.

 

[CrossEyed]

It was a catch and a TD.

Contact came after he had established possession of the ball and he retained that possession for 2-3 steps before going to the ground.

He had possession and then broke the plane of the GL with possession.

Refs simply blew this one.

Folks will claim the refs were following the letter of a new spin on the rule. Thing is the letter of that rule doesn't apply in this situation. These folks are simply wrong.

a TD/? You do realize the ball came loose before it broke the plane.. The rule is the rule..a WR has to control the ball the whole time..as explained by the commentator.

I don't think so. The ball hit the ground on the goal line.

 

[parrot]

It looked to me like he got both feet down with control of the ball, but assuming he didn't, does the hand he put down come into consideration at all?

 

[Spark026]

This call actually made me slightly ashamed to call myself a football fan. That fact that a ruling being made, that though correct according to the letter, could get something so important SO WRONG is appalling.

See how stupid this sounds:

A guy catches a ball with one foot down on the 10yd line with a defender in contact with him. The defender keeps 1 finger in contact with the receiver but is not able to tackle him. He proceeds to run 90yds for a TD and falls into the end zone, but the ball comes loose when he hits the ground even though he's in the end zone. The play is ruled incomplete.

Whether Holmes made a 3yds worth of "football moves" or 90 as in the ex above, the ruling should be the same.

The rule should be changed to if the ball carrier makes any discernable "football moves" after the initial catch, even when in contact with the defender, the play is ruled a catch.

I've never felt more compelled to curse at my tv during a game in which the winner was of no importance to me than after I watched this play.

 

[Modog814]

It looked to me like he got both feet down with control of the ball, but assuming he didn't, does the hand he put down come into consideration at all?

The key is that he got "forced to the ground (read below)" by the defender before his 2nd foot came down. So according to the rules he has to keep possession of the ball through the ground, so No, him putting his hand down does not enter in the equation at all.By "forced to the ground" I mean in the referee's opinion the contact with the defender was the cause of Holmes going to the ground.

 

[Modog814]

This call actually made me slightly ashamed to call myself a football fan. That fact that a ruling being made, that though correct according to the letter, could get something so important SO WRONG is appalling. See how stupid this sounds:A guy catches a ball with one foot down on the 10yd line with a defender in contact with him. The defender keeps 1 finger in contact with the receiver but is not able to tackle him. He proceeds to run 90yds for a TD and falls into the end zone, but the ball comes loose when he hits the ground even though he's in the end zone. The play is ruled incomplete.Whether Holmes made a 3yds worth of "football moves" or 90 as in the ex above, the ruling should be the same.The rule should be changed to if the ball carrier makes any discernable "football moves" after the initial catch, even when in contact with the defender, the play is ruled a catch.I've never felt more compelled to curse at my tv during a game in which the winner was of no importance to me than after I watched this play.

This is incorrect I believe. IF the receiver gains possession of the ball prior to being "forced to the ground" by the defender, then it's a completed catch regardless of the defender keeping 1 finger in contact with him. In the Holmes scenario, it was in the Referee's opinion that it was the defenders contact with Holmes that caused him to go to the ground. Let's not kid ourselves and think that Holmes was upright for 3 more yards dodging and juking here. He lunged forward 3 yards due to being tripped up by the defender. The contact occured prior to the official "completion" thus he needs to maintain control.

 

[Tau837]

I'm surprised so many people here are having trouble with this. It was the correct call, as has been explained in this thread. I thought the people in this forum watched a lot of football... I've seen this type of call numerous times, just not at the goal line.

 

[bryhamm]

This call actually made me slightly ashamed to call myself a football fan. That fact that a ruling being made, that though correct according to the letter, could get something so important SO WRONG is appalling. See how stupid this sounds:A guy catches a ball with one foot down on the 10yd line with a defender in contact with him. The defender keeps 1 finger in contact with the receiver but is not able to tackle him. He proceeds to run 90yds for a TD and falls into the end zone, but the ball comes loose when he hits the ground even though he's in the end zone. The play is ruled incomplete.Whether Holmes made a 3yds worth of "football moves" or 90 as in the ex above, the ruling should be the same.The rule should be changed to if the ball carrier makes any discernable "football moves" after the initial catch, even when in contact with the defender, the play is ruled a catch.I've never felt more compelled to curse at my tv during a game in which the winner was of no importance to me than after I watched this play.

This is incorrect I believe. IF the receiver gains possession of the ball prior to being "forced to the ground" by the defender, then it's a completed catch regardless of the defender keeping 1 finger in contact with him. In the Holmes scenario, it was in the Referee's opinion that it was the defenders contact with Holmes that caused him to go to the ground. Let's not kid ourselves and think that Holmes was upright for 3 more yards dodging and juking here. He lunged forward 3 yards due to being tripped up by the defender. The contact occured prior to the official "completion" thus he needs to maintain control.

I don't think spark was saying that it was an incorrect ruling, but that it prevented what should have been a TD from being awarded. Holmes clearly had control of the ball and broke the plane with the ball. I know he has not technically established "possession" according to the rule, but he had numberous steps, plus his hand hitting the ground, all while not bobbling the ball at all. He broke the goal line and then lost control when he hit the ground. Sure looked like a TD from a control standpoint, but is not a TD from the correct ruling.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Also, the tuck rule. As long as the passer kept pump-faking, he could never be sacked.

Of course he could be sacked, there's no rule about sacking a QB in the act of passing. I guess you could argue that he couldn't fumble, but a string of pump-fakes are going to require that the arm go back as much as it goes forward.

... or in Brady's case, completed the forward motion and actually touched the ball with his left hand prior to knocking it out. It would usually be an incomplete pass, not a fumble or sack (accepting that the ball would come loose 80% or better of the time while doing this absurd, hypothetical act).Point is, you can play Devil's Advocate Attorney and come up with dumb stuff to circumvent the "written" rule, or you can accept the rules the way they are.