Jordy Nelson 16yd TD vs Chargers (1 Viewer)

[jesseasi]

In case you missed it. Here is a link to the replay. Video

How was this TD not overturned.

I have two issues with this play.

1. Is it even a catch. On the replays it is clear the ball hits the ground before Nelson establishes control of the ball.

Control is very subjective but to me rolling on the ground where the ball is still moving in the direction it was thrown is not control. I can live with the possibility that the catch is not overturned but the second part of this blown call is just not acceptable..

2. Assuming it is a catch. The first angle in the video you can see he catches the ball at about the 2 yard line. He should be down right there as he is contacted by the defender at their feet. When watching the game live the announcers even pointed this out. There was NO disputing the contact. So to me if it is a catch he is down at the 1-2 yard line.

How do the refs miss this?

When the ref came back from the review, he gave no explanation. Only saying that the play on the field was confirmed.

Sometimes I wish when the refs get it wrong the opposing teams should challenge again and explain to the ref how to do their job and what they should be looking for.

Venting? Yes!

Cost me this week? Yes big time.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

One possibility. If it was ruled a catch but possession occurred after making contact with the player (the feet entanglement), then it would be a TD. Looks to me like there's contact at the :29 mark. I'm a Rodgers owner and will take any TD I can get but you may have a case here.

 

[Owning 1% of FF talent]

Tough one - but he is not deemed to have possession until after the initial contact. He was bobbling the ball and then he established control and did not allow the ball to hit the ground and rolled accross the GL.

The bobble and the moment of possession is the key. Once possession is clear - he is never touched until he crosses the plane.

 

[Jake22]

In case you missed it. Here is a link to the replay. Video

How was this TD not overturned.

I have two issues with this play.

1. Is it even a catch. On the replays it is clear the ball hits the ground before Nelson establishes control of the ball.

Control is very subjective but to me rolling on the ground where the ball is still moving in the direction it was thrown is not control. I can live with the possibility that the catch is not overturned but the second part of this blown call is just not acceptable..

2. Assuming it is a catch. The first angle in the video you can see he catches the ball at about the 2 yard line. He should be down right there as he is contacted by the defender at their feet. When watching the game live the announcers even pointed this out. There was NO disputing the contact. So to me if it is a catch he is down at the 1-2 yard line.

How do the refs miss this?

When the ref came back from the review, he gave no explanation. Only saying that the play on the field was confirmed.

Sometimes I wish when the refs get it wrong the opposing teams should challenge again and explain to the ref how to do their job and what they should be looking for.

Venting? Yes!

Cost me this week? Yes big time.

After seeing the replay in slow motion, I was sure that the refs were gonna reverse the call...of course they come back and say the replay is confirmed, this happens every week in the NFL and they still haven't gotten instant reply right even with the technology we have today, because different refs make different calls on what should or should not be a catch.

 

[flapgreen]

This baffles me also.

 

[jesseasi]

Tough one - but he is not deemed to have possession until after the initial contact. He was bobbling the ball and then he established control and did not allow the ball to hit the ground and rolled accross the GL.The bobble and the moment of possession is the key. Once possession is clear - he is never touched until he crosses the plane.

If he does not yet have possession till after the contact. Then it is not a catch. You can't establish control or possession after the ball has contacted the ground.

 

[Deamon]

Total BS.... I have no idea how that call wasn't reversed. It seems like refs are scared to overturn calls.... this also cost me my week and was a blown call for sure.

 

[bonesman]

Looks good to me. The only contact I see is as they were engaged before he goes to make the catch... he has to touch him again after the catch is made for there to be a tackle-touch. The pass is more iffy than that... but he has both hands on the ball when it touches the ground and then it never wobbles as he rolls... so TD

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Looks good to me. The only contact I see is as they were engaged before he goes to make the catch... he has to touch him again after the catch is made for there to be a tackle-touch. The pass is more iffy than that... but he has both hands on the ball when it touches the ground and then it never wobbles as he rolls... so TD

Looks like a great catch. You can't tackle a player before he has possession. The defender touches Nelson down in the endzone. The Bert Emanual rule is in play. He has both hands on the ball when it touches the ground and the ball doesn't move at all. TD!

 

[Sabertooth]

Refs were probably like "#### it, they're gonna score anyway."

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Refs were probably like "#### it, they're gonna score anyway."

I was holding my breath during the replay, and FWIW it did look like a good catch that didn't get "put away" cleanly until he rolled into the endzone with possession. The defender didn't touch him until after he got clean possession. TD to me. Glad for it as a Rodgers owner.

 

[sho nuff]

Looks good to me. The only contact I see is as they were engaged before he goes to make the catch... he has to touch him again after the catch is made for there to be a tackle-touch. The pass is more iffy than that... but he has both hands on the ball when it touches the ground and then it never wobbles as he rolls... so TD

Looks like a great catch. You can't tackle a player before he has possession. The defender touches Nelson down in the endzone. The Bert Emanual rule is in play. He has both hands on the ball when it touches the ground and the ball doesn't move at all. TD!

Exactly...hands on the ball...ball can touch the ground if it does not move after. It did not.And I don't think there was enough evidence of contact outside the endzone to overturn.

 

[cr8f]

They ruled even though it touched the ground he controlled the ball.

I disagree with many of these calls-they are judgement calls and many aren't clear enough to overturn.

What is control? At times the ball is moving but still seen as being controlled.

It's catch #4

 

[LittlePhatty]

Looks like a great catch. You can't tackle a player before he has possession.

That's the way it looks to me too.

 

[J Giles Band]

Watched this live and agree this is as close a call as they come. The key was the original ruling on the field. Had the ruling on the field been that it wasn't a catch, or that he was down before the goal line, that likely wouldn't have been overturned either. Whether you are a Nelson owner or opponent, the bottom line is the replay did not provide conclusive evidence to overturn the call.

I can appreciate the venting, but if you're gonna blame losing on this call, then you're in for a long year. There are multiple calls like this every week that will go for and against you. If you're upset about losing and want to do something about it, instead of whining about calls, go get better players.

 

[The Comedian]

To be fair to the refs, they probably didn't know at the time that this call was going to cost you a game in your fantasy league.

 

[Dought Man]

Clearly a touchdown.

 

[Tau837]

The key was the original ruling on the field. Had the ruling on the field been that it wasn't a catch, or that he was down before the goal line, that likely wouldn't have been overturned either.

I disagree with this. The camera angles on this play are clear. IMO it should not have been a catch, and there was sufficient evidence on replay to overturn the call on the field.

 

[Tau837]

What is control? At times the ball is moving but still seen as being controlled.

I agree this is the fundamental issue. IMO Nelson did not have clear control prior to the ball touching the ground. To me, that means by definition there cannot be s catch.

 

[J Giles Band]

I disagree with this. The camera angles on this play are clear. IMO it should not have been a catch, and there was sufficient evidence on replay to overturn the call on the field.

<_< I have no problem with your opinion on the play one way or the other. But clear???

The trained professionals with the video equipment/feeds necessary to make such decisions disagree with you.

 

[sho nuff]

I disagree with this. The camera angles on this play are clear. IMO it should not have been a catch, and there was sufficient evidence on replay to overturn the call on the field.

<_< I have no problem with your opinion on the play one way or the other. But clear???

The trained professionals disagree with you.

Of course its clear...he is a SD fan and #1 Philip Rivers apologist.

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

It was definitely a catch. Also, he didn't catch the ball until after the opponent made contact with him. So, the contact makes no difference. You can't get credit for tackling someone before they have the ball. You have to tackle them or touch them down AFTER they make the catch.

 

[kutta]

Looks like a catch to me. Contact was before the catch, and it's not clear that the ball hit the ground.

 

[jesseasi]

Evidence.

1. Catch is made at the 2 yard line - 6 feet to roll without being touched.

Link

2. If this is possession - he is making contact with the defender. He should be down. It is clear from the replays that their feet make contact.

My link

3. If you want to say possession occurs after the contact - I can see that argument - but I can't agree that it is a catch then. If you are telling me he does not have possession - then this cannot be a catch as the ball makes contact with the ground while he is in the process of trying to gain possession.

Link

4. Some may argue that contact is not made again until he is in the endzone. But this is not true either as the defenders right arm gets tangled between Nelson's legs as he rolls 6 more feet into the endzone.

Seen here as the defender is pull his arm away from the play not toward his leg.

Link

The announcers of game both sounded as if the play should be overturned. They brought in Mike Pereira during the replay to explain what the refs would be looking at. He specifically said they needed to determine if Nelson had possession before the ball hit the ground and if he has possession before hitting the ground - does he make contact with the defender. Without coming out and saying it - he all but hinted that he should either be down by contact or incomplete pass.

OK - I am done with my rant. I know the shark pool has better things to discuss. This one play cost me big money and in my opinion should have been reversed.

Edit - I don't know why the images don't show up- I have changed them to links.

 

[J Giles Band]

OK - I am done with my rant. I know the shark pool has better things to discuss. This one play cost me big money and in my opinion should have been reversed.

And no doubt biases your opinion.I'm not in line that this play cost you a game regardless. Possibly, yes. But had they called the ball down or even incomplete, it is not in the least bit inconceivable that Nelson could have caught the TD pass on the very next play. Then what? You still lose.

Not meaning to rub salt in the wound, just attempting to provide some levity. Once you distance yourself from this week my guess is you'll have more of that. FWIW, are you aware of how many judgement calls went in your favor this past week? Chances are there were several. Some of which you likely aren't even aware of.

Bottom line if you want to win, score more points.

Good luck the rest of you year. Hopefully this comes back to you.

 

[sho nuff]

Evidence.

1. Catch is made at the 2 yard line - 6 feet to roll without being touched.

Link

2. If this is possession - he is making contact with the defender. He should be down. It is clear from the replays that their feet make contact.

My link

3. If you want to say possession occurs after the contact - I can see that argument - but I can't agree that it is a catch then. If you are telling me he does not have possession - then this cannot be a catch as the ball makes contact with the ground while he is in the process of trying to gain possession.

Link

4. Some may argue that contact is not made again until he is in the endzone. But this is not true either as the defenders right arm gets tangled between Nelson's legs as he rolls 6 more feet into the endzone.

Seen here as the defender is pull his arm away from the play not toward his leg.

Link

The announcers of game both sounded as if the play should be overturned. They brought in Mike Pereira during the replay to explain what the refs would be looking at. He specifically said they needed to determine if Nelson had possession before the ball hit the ground and if he has possession before hitting the ground - does he make contact with the defender. Without coming out and saying it - he all but hinted that he should either be down by contact or incomplete pass.

OK - I am done with my rant. I know the shark pool has better things to discuss. This one play cost me big money and in my opinion should have been reversed.

Edit - I don't know why the images don't show up- I have changed them to links.

Possession happened between #2 and #3.HTH

 

[LargeMouthBass]

The reason why it's a catch is even though the ball touched the ground, it didn't assist him in catching the ball. Does that make sense?

 

[Hybrid]

To me it's a pretty clear catch. Even if you don't think it was a catch, with this much debate about it isn't it clear there's not enough evidence to overturn?

 

[Reepicheep]

To me it's a pretty clear catch. Even if you don't think it was a catch, with this much debate about it isn't it clear there's not enough evidence to overturn?

Obviously not irrefutable evidence required to overturn.

 

[The Comedian]

Better late than never:

 

[spodog]

I watched the video. I studied the Zapruder film stills #1 thru #4. I read the evidence.

I think you guys are seeing what you want to see. It is very, very close, but don't see enough to overturn the call on the field. Of course, I don't have a fantasy outcome pivoting on this play, so maybe I'm looking at it through the distored lens of indifference.

 

[Jake22]

I watched the video. I studied the Zapruder film stills #1 thru #4. I read the evidence. I think you guys are seeing what you want to see. It is very, very close, but don't see enough to overturn the call on the field. Of course, I don't have a fantasy outcome pivoting on this play, so maybe I'm looking at it through the distored lens of indifference.

I don't have any fantasy outcome on the play either (not a chargers fan either, just to clarify), and I still think it should've been overturned, as a fan I would rather see the correct calls made instead of the selective BS we see every week from replay officials.

 

[Alkahsu]

Looks fine to me. The ref didn't even say ruling on the field stands, it was staright up confirmed.

 

[Roadrunner]

This one play cost me big money and in my opinion should have been reversed.

It's not true this one play cost you big money. You're just choosing to see it that way. There are many possible reasons you lost:1. Your team didn't score enough points.

2. Perhaps you had a player that almost had a TD but didn't quite get in the endzone.

3. Perhaps you had a player that dropped a long pass that could have been a TD.

4. Perhaps you left a player (or players) on your bench that would have given you a win had you started them.

5. Perhaps a goalline TD was vultured from one of your RBs.

6. Perhaps one of your players scored a TD that was called back by a penalty (hello Ray Rice owners).

7. Perhaps your kicker missed a FG or two.

8. Perhaps your defense didn't create enough (or any) turnovers or sacks.

I also offer this... Was the Nelson TD your opponent's only TD? I suspect not since he won. Maybe one of those other TDs was controversial, e.g., there could have been a holding penalty on one of his RBs scores that wasn't called. Etc., etc., etc.

You DID NOT lose because of that one play. Your opponent had a better lineup than you that day. Live it. Learn it. Move on. That's fantasy football.

 

[Tau837]

I disagree with this. The camera angles on this play are clear. IMO it should not have been a catch, and there was sufficient evidence on replay to overturn the call on the field.

<_< I have no problem with your opinion on the play one way or the other. But clear???

The trained professionals with the video equipment/feeds necessary to make such decisions disagree with you.

IMO there is clear video of the play. Thus, there is video evidence sufficient to make the appropriate call. If the appropriate call was made on the field, it should stand. If the wrong call was made on the field, it should be overturned. Either way, I disagree with the notion that there was insufficient video evidence to determine the correct call.I think the real issue is that there is not a clear understanding of the rule, so different people (and refs) viewing the same clear video will come to different conclusions on whether or not it is a catch, based on having different understandings of the rule.

My understanding of the rule leads me to believe it is not a catch, and I believe that is clear on the video.

 

[Tau837]

I disagree with this. The camera angles on this play are clear. IMO it should not have been a catch, and there was sufficient evidence on replay to overturn the call on the field.

<_< I have no problem with your opinion on the play one way or the other. But clear???

The trained professionals disagree with you.

Of course its clear...he is a SD fan and #1 Philip Rivers apologist.

And you are one of the biggest Green Bay homers on this forum. So what? I'm commenting on my interpretation of the play based on my understanding of the rules. I would feel the same if it was a pass from Rivers to a Chargers player.

 

[jesseasi]

This one play cost me big money and in my opinion should have been reversed.

It's not true this one play cost you big money. You're just choosing to see it that way. There are many possible reasons you lost:1. Your team didn't score enough points.

2. Perhaps you had a player that almost had a TD but didn't quite get in the endzone.

3. Perhaps you had a player that dropped a long pass that could have been a TD.

4. Perhaps you left a player (or players) on your bench that would have given you a win had you started them.

5. Perhaps a goalline TD was vultured from one of your RBs.

6. Perhaps one of your players scored a TD that was called back by a penalty (hello Ray Rice owners).

7. Perhaps your kicker missed a FG or two.

8. Perhaps your defense didn't create enough (or any) turnovers or sacks.

I also offer this... Was the Nelson TD your opponent's only TD? I suspect not since he won. Maybe one of those other TDs was controversial, e.g., there could have been a holding penalty on one of his RBs scores that wasn't called. Etc., etc., etc.

You DID NOT lose because of that one play. Your opponent had a better lineup than you that day. Live it. Learn it. Move on. That's fantasy football.

I lost by 0.4 points this week. There are many things I could point my loss to. Forte's two fumbles on Monday night were the most heart breaking. But as the video in the replays showed, they were fumbles. In our league, 0.4 points equates to 4 yards either rushing or receiving.

My angst is that Nelson's TD was not a TD. At least in my opinion. To lose on what I felt was the wrong call hurts more.