One last thing about Murphy's "NO TD" ruling last night (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

Pererria talked about this last year. Regardless of how some of us would like to interpret the wording of the rule, it has been explained previously, ad nauseum, that the reciever must KEEP control all the way through the act of falling.

WE can argue about whther or not this is a good rule, but as it has been interpreted in the past, AND AS IT WAS EXPLAINED IN DEPTH in the past...the ruling was correct.

Do I like it....not really...I think this should be a catch...but I understand why it isn't, and I don't know how to adjust this rule well enough to make this one a catch while still gaurding against the other BS problems which could arise (mainly in creating too much gray area for judgement).

Get over it and move on. It's a tough call, but the right call.

Side note: It's almost as bad as when a reciver catches a ball 5 full feet in bounds, but right after his left toe left the turf...which barely catches the white stripe on his way out, while another guy catches a ball 5 full feet over that white line while falling, but has his toes touching 3 inches in bounds. (Makes me wonder sometimes if arena football is on to something!)

 

[Raider Nation]

Check this video out, and thanks to Ed Wood for reminding me about it in the Raider thread.

To put into perspective how ridiculous they have become with the rules, watch Butch Johnson's TD catch at the 0:27 mark:

Of course, in response to the bolded.Don't remember anything about the Cliff Branch catch... only the Clarence Davis catch.

And I acknowledged the different rules/era. Just always thought it was hilarious that catch was allowed to stand. I remember being a little kid, watching that game with my dad. I asked him how in the world they could call that a TD... LOL. Can't believe I was defending the Broncos.

 

[Raider Nation]

Get over it and move on. It's a tough call, but the right call.

There's nothing to get over. It's done. Now we're just a bunch of football fans discussing a poor rule. But keep yelling if you want to.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

http://www.atlantafalcons.com/News/Article...s_for_2007.aspx

“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.”

 

[The Jerk]

Check this video out, and thanks to Ed Wood for reminding me about it in the Raider thread.

To put into perspective how ridiculous they have become with the rules, watch Butch Johnson's TD catch at the 0:27 mark:

If you were a little kid for the Butch Johnson catch, then you would not know of the Sea of Hands details except for account of the game or the excellent retrospective they just did a year or two ago (I think) on the "NFL Greatest Games" series. Link to commentary on Sea of Hands game and Branch's "catch"Cliff Branch trapped a long pass from Stabler that was underthrown and/or Branch slipped. Branch was not touched and got up and scored to make the score 21-19, Raiders. Griese then led the Dolphins quickly down the field -- too quickly -- to get the lead back 26-21. Then the Raiders had the final drive that finished with the Clarence Davis TD.

 

[Raider Nation]

If you were a little kid for the Butch Johnson catch, then you would not know of the Sea of Hands details except for account of the game or the excellent retrospective they just did a year or two ago (I think) on the "NFL Greatest Games" series.Cliff Branch trapped a long pass from Stabler that was underthrown and/or Branch slipped. Branch was not touched and got up and scored to make the score 21-19, Raiders. Griese then led the Dolphins quickly down the field -- too quickly -- to get the lead back 26-21. Then the Raiders had the final drive that finished with the Clarence Davis TD.

Yeah, I've seen the game via the GG series, but I still don't recall that Branch play. Strange. I have it around here somewhere. I'll dig it out.

 

[The Jerk]

If you were a little kid for the Butch Johnson catch, then you would not know of the Sea of Hands details except for account of the game or the excellent retrospective they just did a year or two ago (I think) on the "NFL Greatest Games" series.Cliff Branch trapped a long pass from Stabler that was underthrown and/or Branch slipped. Branch was not touched and got up and scored to make the score 21-19, Raiders. Griese then led the Dolphins quickly down the field -- too quickly -- to get the lead back 26-21. Then the Raiders had the final drive that finished with the Clarence Davis TD.

Yeah, I've seen the game via the GG series, but I still don't recall that Branch play. Strange. I have it around here somewhere. I'll dig it out.

Cool. I'm not trying to jump all over you about it, I just thought it was relevant to what you mentioned. Bob Griese is still angry about the call, as of course it in part led to their defeat and inability to go for a third straight championship. It was clearly emphasized in the NFL Greatest Games feature, so if you have that you'll easily notice it if you watch again.

 

[cvnpoka]

http://www.atlantafalcons.com/News/Article...s_for_2007.aspx

“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.”

reading this it sure seems like it shoulda been a td.of course, according to interpretation from the raider game, and the consensus itt, this play should absolutely be an incomplete pass.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patr...winning-TD-pass

 

[Raider Nation]

If you were a little kid for the Butch Johnson catch, then you would not know of the Sea of Hands details except for account of the game or the excellent retrospective they just did a year or two ago (I think) on the "NFL Greatest Games" series.

Cliff Branch trapped a long pass from Stabler that was underthrown and/or Branch slipped. Branch was not touched and got up and scored to make the score 21-19, Raiders. Griese then led the Dolphins quickly down the field -- too quickly -- to get the lead back 26-21. Then the Raiders had the final drive that finished with the Clarence Davis TD.

Yeah, I've seen the game via the GG series, but I still don't recall that Branch play. Strange. I have it around here somewhere. I'll dig it out.

Cool. I'm not trying to jump all over you about it, I just thought it was relevant to what you mentioned. Bob Griese is still angry about the call, as of course it in part led to their defeat and inability to go for a third straight championship. It was clearly emphasized in the NFL Greatest Games feature, so if you have that you'll easily notice it if you watch again.

#### happens. Oakland was unable to defend their Super Bowl title in '77 when the refs ruled that Denver's Rob Lytle did not fumble at the goal line. A fumble which the Raiders returned for a TD which did not count, but should have. That would have sent them to the big game again. There are many plays in every game which are questionable.

 

[Raider Nation]

this play should absolutely be an incomplete pass.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patr...winning-TD-pass

I must be missing something here. That catch by Watson appears to be textbook. What was wrong with it?

 

[The Jerk]

If you were a little kid for the Butch Johnson catch, then you would not know of the Sea of Hands details except for account of the game or the excellent retrospective they just did a year or two ago (I think) on the "NFL Greatest Games" series.

Cliff Branch trapped a long pass from Stabler that was underthrown and/or Branch slipped. Branch was not touched and got up and scored to make the score 21-19, Raiders. Griese then led the Dolphins quickly down the field -- too quickly -- to get the lead back 26-21. Then the Raiders had the final drive that finished with the Clarence Davis TD.

Yeah, I've seen the game via the GG series, but I still don't recall that Branch play. Strange. I have it around here somewhere. I'll dig it out.

Cool. I'm not trying to jump all over you about it, I just thought it was relevant to what you mentioned. Bob Griese is still angry about the call, as of course it in part led to their defeat and inability to go for a third straight championship. It was clearly emphasized in the NFL Greatest Games feature, so if you have that you'll easily notice it if you watch again.

#### happens. Oakland was unable to defend their Super Bowl title in '77 when the refs ruled that Denver's Rob Lytle did not fumble at the goal line. A fumble which the Raiders returned for a TD which did not count, but should have. That would have sent them to the big game again. There are many plays in every game which are questionable.

Easy there. As a Steeler fan, I dislike both the Raiders and the Dolphins from the 1970s. I was just adding detail from the NFL Greatest Games broadcast of the Sea of Hands game. I agree about the Rob Lytle fumble, but I also thought the Raiders benefited from a similar situation in the 1980 AFCC defeat of San Diego. Given enough seasons, the breaks tend to even out, just like in FF. In the Steelers/Raiders playoff series, the Immaculate Reception was somewhat counterbalanced by losing both Bleier and Harris to injury the week before the 1976 AFCC. The Raiders had a good chance to win that game anyway, but it surely helped that instead of Bleier and Harris, the Steelers were running the ball with the immortal Reggie Harrison.

 

[dparker713]

Oh, I don't know anymore. Now I'm going back and forth. Maybe they do mean the same thing. Maybe "touching the ground" and "hitting the ground" are the same.

I would have to think that 'hitting the ground' is a subset of 'through the act of falling'. I mean, I guess you could fall entirely on another player and never actually hit the ground while completing the act of falling, but thats an awfully narrow exception. Just seems like the sideline play is just as poor drafting as the other provision. I also think that due to the nature of how rules are changed, you cant necessarily use other sections to inform your interpretation. I wonder when the last time was that they had a person sit down and make sure all the rules are consistent as written.

 

[cvnpoka]

this play should absolutely be an incomplete pass.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patr...winning-TD-pass

I must be missing something here. That catch by Watson appears to be textbook. What was wrong with it?

the ball hits the ground. ie, his arm is not underneath the ball when he comes down.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

If this happened outside the 2min warning how many coaches throw the challenge flag

 

[JAA]

if not already said ...

football move

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

If this happened outside the 2min warning how many coaches throw the challenge flag

Probably not many.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://www.atlantafalcons.com/News/Article...s_for_2007.aspx

“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.”

This is a good note, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Murphy play since what Hochuli is talking about is the provision when a receiver is not falling to the ground as he's making the catch.If he's not falling to the ground, he just needs to control the ball while getting two feet down. No football move needed.

If he's falling, he needs to control the ball all the way through his fall (as the rule has been interpreted). They come under different provisions in the rules.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if not already said ...football move

Speaking of this . . . I know it's a phrase the TV announcers have used quite often in past years. But I've had a copy of the rulebook every year since I think 2001, and the phrase never appeared in the rulebook.I suppose that's why, in the Hochuli quote just posted, he called the absence of a "football move" requirement a change in interpretation rather than a rule change. It was never in the actual rules.

 

[davearm]

if not already said ...football move

Speaking of this . . . I know it's a phrase the TV announcers have used quite often in past years. But I've had a copy of the rulebook every year since I think 2001, and the phrase never appeared in the rulebook.I suppose that's why, in the Hochuli quote just posted, he called the absence of a "football move" requirement a change in interpretation rather than a rule change. It was never in the actual rules.

This illustrates why this thread's earlier focus on parsing the actual wording of the rulebook really misses the point.Much like the strikezone in baseball, there's the written rule, and the application of the rule (as specified in situations manuals, officials clinics, case study videos, etc). The latter is what's relevant.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If this happened outside the 2min warning how many coaches throw the challenge flag

Norv Turner said in Tuesday's press conference that he would have.

 

[belljr]

You know what? I'm changing my mind on this. I think it should have been a touchdown when he maintained control just after his butt hit the ground.

I just read the next part of the rules.

Read these two sections together:

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.

Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

In the second case, I think it's pretty clear that the player has to maintain control all the way through his entire fall. Whoever drafted these rules knew how to say it if that's what he meant. The fact that he phrased the in-bounds case and the out-of-bounds case differently implies that he meant them to mean something different from one another.In the in-bounds case, why say "after he touches the ground" instead of "throughout the act of falling"? They must not mean the same thing, or the rules would use the same language.

So I no longer would interpret "after he touches the ground" to mean "throughout the act of falling." So what does it mean? I think the most sensible interpretation is that it means after his initial contact with the ground (with his body, not his feet). If he bounces on the ground a few times, it's the first bounce that matters -- not the last bounce as in the out-of-bounds case.

So I think it's Murphy's butt that should matter, not his forearm.

I think they separated them simply because you can "go to the ground" in play to make a catch, like drop to one knee for a low throw, slide to make a catch etc.Out of Bounds you are really only falling, out of bounds.

 

[twr]

this really made it to three pages?

he must retain possession until the fall is through... so he falls, hits, slides... and he still has possession... that's a completion.

he falls, hits, and bobbles the ball and it comes out... that's not a completion.

he hits falls, losses the ball, bounces off his face, and he catches it again before it hits the ground and retains possession, that IS a completion.

if any part of the ball touches the ground regardless of if he has possession or not during the catch, it is a not a completion.

i havnt seen the play, so i cant say one way or the other if it was a catch or not... but there are the rules... read them, digest them, and then re-watch it.

this is a perfect example. wayne has POSSESSION of the ball even if its with ONE hand. gets both feet down WHILE HAVING POSSESSION, hits the ground, and the ball stays secure, and never touches the ground.

 

[belljr]

this really made it to three pages?

he must retain possession until the fall is through... so he falls, hits, slides... and he still has possession... that's a completion.

he falls, hits, and bobbles the ball and it comes out... that's not a completion.

he hits falls, losses the ball, bounces off his face, and he catches it again before it hits the ground and retains possession, that IS a completion.

if any part of the ball touches the ground regardless of if he has possession or not during the catch, it is a not a completion.

i havnt seen the play, so i cant say one way or the other if it was a catch or not... but there are the rules... read them, digest them, and then re-watch it.

this is a perfect example. wayne has POSSESSION of the ball even if its with ONE hand. gets both feet down WHILE HAVING POSSESSION, hits the ground, and the ball stays secure, and never touches the ground.

That is wrong. AKA - the Bert Emanuel rule

 

[twr]

this really made it to three pages?

he must retain possession until the fall is through... so he falls, hits, slides... and he still has possession... that's a completion.

he falls, hits, and bobbles the ball and it comes out... that's not a completion.

he hits falls, losses the ball, bounces off his face, and he catches it again before it hits the ground and retains possession, that IS a completion.

if any part of the ball touches the ground regardless of if he has possession or not during the catch, it is a not a completion.

i havnt seen the play, so i cant say one way or the other if it was a catch or not... but there are the rules... read them, digest them, and then re-watch it.

this is a perfect example. wayne has POSSESSION of the ball even if its with ONE hand. gets both feet down WHILE HAVING POSSESSION, hits the ground, and the ball stays secure, and never touches the ground.

hmmm corrected.

 

[JAA]

if not already said ...football move

Speaking of this . . . I know it's a phrase the TV announcers have used quite often in past years. But I've had a copy of the rulebook every year since I think 2001, and the phrase never appeared in the rulebook.I suppose that's why, in the Hochuli quote just posted, he called the absence of a "football move" requirement a change in interpretation rather than a rule change. It was never in the actual rules.

as I understand it, the rulebook attempts to describe the players actions, not paraphrase. 'Football Move' is not a rule, but a paraphrase of the rulebook.