This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Totally agree.To me this differs a lot from the Calvin play. It looked like; 1 foot, 2 foot, break the plane, foot out of bounds, end of play (to me).I thought plays were dead when the ball breaks the plane?Then again WTF do I know.No dog in this fight either; no FF players involved, and as a Steelers fan I equally hate both of these teams.
So write a better rule.
How about possession and two feet (or one of any other body part other than hands) down in bounds?So write a better rule.
How about, possession + 2 feet in the end zone = TDSo write a better rule.
If you demonstrate control of the ball in the end zone, it is a TD period. Now when a receiver jumps up for a ball a smart defender will do a tackle and a strip. If the player does not maintain possession throughout the whole process (far beyond just being down by contact), it is an incomplete pass. The ex-referee expert almost was convinced last weeks Detroit's TD should have been disallowed because he lost the ball after taking several steps out of bounds and got tangled up in some netting.So write a better rule.
Calm down sparky.When you come in saying it's a "craptastic call" you make it sound like you are pinning it on the refs. Learn to express yourself better.'DA RAIDERS said:VIRTUALLY NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE CALL WAS INCORRECT BY THE REFS ACCORDING TO THE RULE AS IT IS WRITTENand, to be clear, I'm not I do think it should be a TD and the rule should be changed. ####### semantics.'thayman said:
Not the same IMHO. In bennetts catch the ball was knocked loose before he hit the ground.
Grammar.'Buzzbait said:
I didn't see the ball come loose on that play before he hit the ground, but if you saw it I won't argue that, but I did hear the announcers say he needed to hold onto the ball after hitting the ground though.
I started Bennett. The hit knocked it loose.
Bennett started bobbling it before he hit the ground, and then it finally popped out for good when he hit the ground. In that case it was the right call.Signed,Bennett owner
If the receiver established possession prior to crossing the goal line (just like a RB or anyone else would be who is stretching for the pylon), it wouldn't be different.Yes.....the rule is there and it's not going to change. But I just don't get how a receiver can catch the ball, cross the goal line, have 2 feet down, but when he hits the ground the ball comes out and it is incomplete. But yet......a player diving for the pylon just needs to have the ball hit the pylon and it's a TD and the play is over. The ball can roll out and there is no control, but it hit the pylon so it is good.
'Dizzy said:
I asked for a rule that unambiguously defines possession. You can't use the word possession in the definition.'mad sweeney said:
completely agree. if a rb were to stretch the ball diving across the goal line, break the plane and then fumble when he hits the ground, what result? TD. Should be the same result here. Once they get the feet down w/ the ball in the end zone, TD. This complete the catch rule is borderline ######ed'.
only in the last 2 years. every year preceding that it was a TD. If the ground can't cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion.
I actually like the rule as it adds a dimension of difficulty to receiving that has consistently been made easier and easier over the years with all the defensive rule changes.However, I always thought the Megatron play was not ruled correctly. Basically he had controlled to the ground and then was getting up off the ground when he dropped the ball to run off and celebrate. At what point is he done catching the freakin ball there? He caught it, secured it, went to the ground with all body parts, and then was getting up and dropped the ball. To me it wasn't even a gray area. If controlling to the ground is the standard then wouldn't it stand to reason that you would need to rule it a catch the moment the player begins to rise from the ground? A player shouldn't have to take the ball home with him before getting a reception. If the rule was applied correctly in that particular case, then I would say just that poriton needs to be tweaked a bit. My two cents...
The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
As far as I know, a player has always had to establish possession in order to score a TD. Establishing possession is defined by the rules, and there are different rules for possession when you're going to the ground, etc. You're right that the rules that govern these types of things have changed over the years, but there were problems with the old rules, too. That's why they changed them.
I don't think that's the case. I only saw this play once and don't remember the specifics, but the issue is not that he's in the end zone, the issue is that he's trying to establish possession as he's going to the ground. This would be ruled the same way regardless of where it happened on the field.The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
Substitute 'control' for possession.
No it is not. It would have been an incompletion on the 50 yard line the same as in the end zone.The rules on maintaining possession when going to the ground are the same everywhere.The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
But if someone takes 5 steps with the ball, isn't that possession? I don't understand how there is any "maintaining" possession to be had at that point. He caught the ball and took several steps; at that point, it's a catch, no?No it is not. It would have been an incompletion on the 50 yard line the same as in the end zone.The rules on maintaining possession when going to the ground are the same everywhere.The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
If you're going to remove the guideline of how long control has to be maintained, people would hate your new rule more than they hate the existing one.That's how it worked to start with, and there was no consistency as to what was a catch and fumble versus what was incomplete. A good rule has to have something to guide the refs on how long control has to be maintained for it to count. Otherwise, someone standing on both feet who gets both hands on the ball, stopping it for a millisecond before it squirts free, should be a catch and fumble by your rule. Some refs called it that way under the old rule, others required longer control. Very inconsistent and the announcers and fans were always complaining they didn't know what a catch was anymore.Now it's pretty consistent in that regard. The part that causes disputes is the going to the ground.
The "takes 5 steps with the ball" could make it a catch if he didn't go to the ground, but it doesn't matter if those steps are taken after he lost his balance. Let me start from scratch and walk through the play. Here is a description of the play from the standpoint of the rules being applied. Gresham started bobbling the ball a few yards from the end zone. He finally gained control (in this case had the ball in both hands and not moving) right around the goal line. With that control going on, he got 1 foot in bounds just before the goal line. He got his other foot in bounds just past the goal line. He does not yet have possession by the rules. He still has more to do to complete the catch, which is why he is not the same as a RB who already established possession before getting to the goal line.But if someone takes 5 steps with the ball, isn't that possession? I don't understand how there is any "maintaining" possession to be had at that point. He caught the ball and took several steps; at that point, it's a catch, no?No it is not. It would have been an incompletion on the 50 yard line the same as in the end zone.The rules on maintaining possession when going to the ground are the same everywhere.The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
If they make a change I think it would be something like you say here, Juggernaut, and I think that would be a good change. Keep the wording requiring control, 2 feet, time for a football act in place. Make going to the ground decided by whether the player had enough control of his balance at the time his second foot came down, rather than whether he lost it before completing the football act as it is now.So if you jump and make a catch and drag two feet while falling, you still have to maintain control through hitting the ground same as the rules today. But if you're running and make the catch, get two feet down, and then stagger to the ground as Gresham did, the staggered step would qualify as your football act, after which it wouldn't matter if the ball came out.
I agree with the rule actually. It's nearly impossible to define the gray area of possession. The rule was made to eliminate the judgment from the call. You might not like it but it's much easier to enforce. The best way to avoid the rule taking away a touchdown is by tucking the ball. How could the rule be changed without losing the black and white that the rule exists for?I don't think that's the case. I only saw this play once and don't remember the specifics, but the issue is not that he's in the end zone, the issue is that he's trying to establish possession as he's going to the ground. This would be ruled the same way regardless of where it happened on the field.The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
Exactly what happened.'Buzzbait said:
There was a big difference between the two, although CJ's play last year should have been a TD to'Das Boot said:Regardless of your opinion of the rule, it exists and all the receiver has to do is wrap up the ball - in both Calvin's case and Gresham today, both could have easily done so and taken away any potential for the catch to be overturned.'mad sweeney said:The rule is absolutely stupid. Megatron's catch last year involved him possessing the ball in the air, getting two feet down, his butt, his hip, his elbow all down on the ground and then the ball still in his hand getting knocked out after his whole body was down. There was no showboating and although I didn't see the Gresham one, that's rarely the case when it happens. Moronic that all that can happen and still be ruled incomplete.'Das Boot said:It was a great call and I like the rule.
All the receiver has to do is wrap up the ball to take away any doubt.
Instead of showboating and holding the ball out with one hand, simply wrap it up against your chest - take away any doubt from the refs and the instant replay.
P.S. Dang, the Bengals really could have used that TD.
n Greshams play he had possession BEFORE he went across the goalline.
'DA RAIDERS said:
He didn't have possession until the ball was over the goal line. If he had possession before the ball crossed the line I don't think the rule would apply because putting the ball over the goal line would be considered a football move thus having possession.
You're misunderstanding the issue. It's the same whether it happens in the end zone or out.
I'd guess that it was ruled a good catch because he went to the ground and maintained rock solid possession - long enough, in the ref's judgement, to be a completed play.There has to be a point where the ref decides the player has hit the ground, is officially down, has full and complete possession, and hence the play is complete.
The defender knocked the ball out after he had complete control. The rule doesn't apply if the defender causes the receiver to lose the ball after he demonstrates possession after going to the ground.
I imagine the ruling was that he controlled the ball through the act of going to the ground, which makes it a catch, and afterwards it was pulled free. I would call it that way from what the video shows. The motion or momentum from going to the ground was already spent when the ball came free.
In other words a stupid rule.The "takes 5 steps with the ball" could make it a catch if he didn't go to the ground, but it doesn't matter if those steps are taken after he lost his balance. Let me start from scratch and walk through the play. Here is a description of the play from the standpoint of the rules being applied. Gresham started bobbling the ball a few yards from the end zone. He finally gained control (in this case had the ball in both hands and not moving) right around the goal line. With that control going on, he got 1 foot in bounds just before the goal line. He got his other foot in bounds just past the goal line. He does not yet have possession by the rules. He still has more to do to complete the catch, which is why he is not the same as a RB who already established possession before getting to the goal line.But if someone takes 5 steps with the ball, isn't that possession? I don't understand how there is any "maintaining" possession to be had at that point. He caught the ball and took several steps; at that point, it's a catch, no?No it is not. It would have been an incompletion on the 50 yard line the same as in the end zone.The rules on maintaining possession when going to the ground are the same everywhere.The crazy thing is that it is a catch anywhere on the field except for the end zone.
After getting the 2nd foot down, any receiver, anywhere on the field whether the 50 yard line or the end zone, now must continue to maintain control of the ball and maintain his balance for the time it takes to make a football act. If he does it will be a catch. How long is that? The rules examples of a football act are, "long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc".
However he did not do that. Gresham immediately was losing his balance and began to fall, which by the rules means he is "going to the ground". If you are going to the ground, you instead must retain control of the ball through the entire act of going to the ground.
It does not matter if Gresham took 1 staggering step as he fell to the ground, or 3 or 5. Once he failed to satisfy the requirements for possession and began to go to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball through the entire act of going to the ground. While he was still going to the ground, he hit the ball on the ground, and the ref ruled that it moved within his hand which means he lost control. Which is an incompletion.
So if you want to ask, "After control and 2 feet down, does taking more steps without losing your balance make it a catch?" The answer would be yes, he would have it long enough to have been able to do a football act as taking steps forward is advancing the ball and that's a football act.
If you are asking, "After control and 2 feet down, and losing his balance right away (as Gresham did), does taking more steps after having lost his balance make it a catch?" The answer is no. If he is going to the ground before he had it long enough to have made the football act, then he has to maintain control until he's finished hitting the ground. Additional off-balance footfalls or no.
Incidentally Bdog, Mike Pereira agrees with us that the ball didn't move clearly enough upon him hitting the ground that it should have been overturned. But if it had moved, the call was correct.
