Vincent Brown TD Reversed (1 Viewer)

[cst2006]

In disbelief about that call, way to break out some obscure rule that defies all common sense. That was a TD if I've ever seen one, amazing night for the two rookies regardless.

 

[DeaLerZ]

yea man these rules are getting ridiculous and they are starting to ruin the game.. if the guy who catches it is in bounds.. i don't care who is touching the ball... its a freaking TD

 

[SDrizzy]

BS Call. Ed Hochuli hates San Diego.

Very little bias here from a diehard Bolt fan and Vincent Brown starter.

 

[SacramentoBob]

He didn't have control.

 

[shnikies]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Pretty simple call on that one. Ball clearly moving. Didn't even need slow-mo for it.

 

[cst2006]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

WTH does the defender being out of bounds have to do with anything???

 

[The Future Champs]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

Agree, as the rule allows a defensive player to gain an advantage by stepping out of bounds and continuing to play.

 

[robertd52]

Im watching the game on dvr now, was at this play, heard the announcers talking about its a lock for a catch, etc. 10 seconds into replays I realized it was a no catch. Fact is, if ANY player (offense or defense) are touching out of bounds in ANY capacity, and touch the ball in ANY capacity, the play HAS to end.

If it doesnt, it opens a whole can of worms. What if if deflects of a defender who was standing out of bounds (or worse an offensive guy) and then gets taken by an offensive guy (or worse a defensive in this case) and taken to the house. It would add a whole screwed up dimension to the game.

Now granted, this play was the absolute closest thing that this rule impacts to being something that provided ZERO advantage or change to the spirit of the game, but rules are rules....

All that said, I need a spot in the booth

 

[shnikies]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

Agree, as the rule allows a defensive player to gain an advantage by stepping out of bounds and continuing to play.

What?

 

[GregR]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

A defensive back who is standing 3 foot out of bounds gets hit by a pass. The ball bounces off his shoulder pads and back into the field of play, where another player who is in bounds catches it.You are effectively saying that this scenario should be a complete pass because you don't want an out of bounds player touching a loose ball to result in a dead ball.

 

[Apple Jack]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

A defensive back who is standing 3 foot out of bounds gets hit by a pass. The ball bounces off his shoulder pads and back into the field of play, where another player who is in bounds catches it.You are effectively saying that this scenario should be a complete pass because you don't want an out of bounds player touching a loose ball to result in a dead ball.

And there is the scenario that makes this rule necessary that I was trying to think of earlier.I rewatched the play in slow motion a number of times and I still don't think it was conclusive. But the Chargers ended up scoring anyway, so it was irrelevant.

 

[kinghill]

hate instant replay

 

[Hoss Style]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

A defensive back who is standing 3 foot out of bounds gets hit by a pass. The ball bounces off his shoulder pads and back into the field of play, where another player who is in bounds catches it.You are effectively saying that this scenario should be a complete pass because you don't want an out of bounds player touching a loose ball to result in a dead ball.

He might be saying that, but I'm not. I'm saying that if a player is attempting to catch a pass, with his hands on the ball (not necessarily in possession of it, yet), and a defensive player who happens to be out of bounds at the time is able to touch the ball then it should not invalidate the catch that is attempting to be made. This would not be a difficult rule to change and even enforce. If a player has possession, or is attempting to gain possession, then the person whom ends up with the ball (assuming it ends up being a legit catch) is the person who ends up having the "possesion" rule applied to him.Or something like that. I'm changing a rule with 10 minutes of thought that probably has a lot more factors to be considered. The basic part of what I think is wrong with the rule is pretty clear, though.

 

[stugnut]

This rule is of course true regardless if it is a player from the offense or the defense who touches the ball while out of bounds.

I remember being schooled on this rule when, on a kickoff, the ball was heading close to but not quite out of bounds and the player fielding the ball deliberately put one foot out of bounds and leaned back into the field of play and caught the ball. The ball was ruled out of bounds, penalty on the kicking team, and the ball was spotted on the receiving teams 40. Smart play on the kick returner.

 

[Da Guru]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defenders body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

 

[Sabertooth]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defenders body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Watching the game last night we had the same conversation. Also, on fake punts, apparently pass interference isn't callable. That's interesting too. Seems that rule could be bent somehow as well.

 

[Sabertooth]

This rule is of course true regardless if it is a player from the offense or the defense who touches the ball while out of bounds.I remember being schooled on this rule when, on a kickoff, the ball was heading close to but not quite out of bounds and the player fielding the ball deliberately put one foot out of bounds and leaned back into the field of play and caught the ball. The ball was ruled out of bounds, penalty on the kicking team, and the ball was spotted on the receiving teams 40. Smart play on the kick returner.

Interesting.

 

[Wadsworth]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defenders body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Yea, I had the same conversation watching the game last night. There would seem to be some room for abuse with this rule.

 

[Hang 10]

hate instant replay

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

hate instant replay

Both of you probably screamed for instant replay when the shoe was on the other foot

 

[jonboltz]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defenders body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Cornerbacks have a hard enough time with 1-on-1 coverage without worrying about trying to get a foot out of bounds (which would be farther away from them). If they were able to hit the ball while out of bounds, it would be easier to try to coach the CB to just knock the ball down.Also, from the bolded above--the defender needs to have contact with the ball, not the WR.

 

[BroadwayG]

A whole lot of nonsense up in here.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

Good luck on that... Yeah you might get it to work once out of 10 times, but the other 9 are going to be TDs.Also, this doesn't apply to touching the WR, just the ball.

 

[finito]

All I know is this guy looks like a dynasty stud.

 

[Hang 10]

hate instant replay

Both of you probably screamed for instant replay when the shoe was on the other foot

What other foot? I'm not a chargers fan, nor a raiders hater. I just think that was a pretty clear TD that was reversed because of over analyzing of replay. If anything the replay was inconclusive. It was ruled a TD on the field after all.

 

[GregR]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defenders body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

 

[Late225]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defenders body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

 

[theplayer11]

not sure it makes sense to punish an offensive player because a defensive player happen to step out of bounds..

 

[mrspree15]

not sure it makes sense to punish an offensive player because a defensive player happen to step out of bounds..

Nobody is being "punished." It was a free ball, nobody had control of it. If Shepherd was the one trying to control it and Brown was out of bounds, it would be the same call.

 

[jon_mx]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

 

[jonboltz]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

at the idea that there is ever a scenario where a defender is going to do anything like this on purpose.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

A defensive back who is standing 3 foot out of bounds gets hit by a pass. The ball bounces off his shoulder pads and back into the field of play, where another player who is in bounds catches it.You are effectively saying that this scenario should be a complete pass because you don't want an out of bounds player touching a loose ball to result in a dead ball.

Yes, that should be the rule. The offense should never be penalized by the defense's mistake. As long as the offensive player is in bounds the entire time it should be a catch.The defense would not be able to intercept the ball however if a defensive player touched the ball out of bounds.

 

[shnikies]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

That's illegal touching. Bottom line, it's a good rule and Rivers and Brown owner should stop convincing themselves otherwise.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

That's illegal touching. Bottom line, it's a good rule and Rivers and Brown owner should stop convincing themselves otherwise.

How is it a good rule for the offense to be punished for the defense's mistake?

 

[shnikies]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

That's illegal touching. Bottom line, it's a good rule and Rivers and Brown owner should stop convincing themselves otherwise.

How is it a good rule for the offense to be punished for the defense's mistake?

How is it a mistake? He's fighting for the ball and steps out of bounds. It's not a mistake, it's a common occurrence that's ruled logically. How is it not out of bounds if a player that is out of bounds touches the ball? It works for the offense when they fumble and the defense recovers a fumble while having part of the body out of bounds. There's no argument against the rule.

 

[PahtyTom]

about as stupid an overturn as megatron vs chicago last year, but standard for the nfl

 

[Sabertooth]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

That's illegal touching. Bottom line, it's a good rule and Rivers and Brown owner should stop convincing themselves otherwise.

FWIW Rivers still passed the TD in, just to Hester.

 

[faulkfan]

If a ball that isn't possessed by a player is touched by a player out of bounds it's incomplete. Nothing to really complain about.

Yea I heard what Hochuli said, just don't agree with the rule here I suppose. Whether the defender was in bounds or out of bounds it has no bearing on that play, Brown went up and made an amazing catch, ball never hit the ground, and he finished in bounds with control. Just not sure why a defender's foot being out of bounds while he's defending that has any bearing on the merit of the catch.

Agree, as the rule allows a defensive player to gain an advantage by stepping out of bounds and continuing to play.

Not really. How many times will a defender be in position to make a play on the ball while standing out of bounds? I think it would be difficult to plan to make such a play since the defender most times is closer to the middle of the field than the out of bounds. Just my thought.

 

[bonesman]

This rule is of course true regardless if it is a player from the offense or the defense who touches the ball while out of bounds.I remember being schooled on this rule when, on a kickoff, the ball was heading close to but not quite out of bounds and the player fielding the ball deliberately put one foot out of bounds and leaned back into the field of play and caught the ball. The ball was ruled out of bounds, penalty on the kicking team, and the ball was spotted on the receiving teams 40. Smart play on the kick returner.

I remember that play. Seems like it was Sproles... or maybe Hester... someone that could've took it to the house.

 

[kinghill]

hate instant replay

Both of you probably screamed for instant replay when the shoe was on the other foot

Only if it involved my FF player not getting points because of a bad call.

 

[GregR]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

That's illegal touching. Bottom line, it's a good rule and Rivers and Brown owner should stop convincing themselves otherwise.

I believe for it to be illegal touching, he has to re-establish himself in bounds first (and be the first then to touch the pass).If he does not re-establish himself in bounds first as he's saying, then the call is out of bounds and dead ball. Here's an example out of the NFL rulebook:

A.R. 8.17 INCOMPLETE PASS—PLAYER JUMPS FROM OUT OF BOUNDS

Second-and-10 on A40. In an effort to intercept a pass at the B45, B2, who is standing with one foot on

the sideline and the other inbounds, jumps up in the air and tips the ball up. B2 then comes down to the

ground with both feet inbounds and jumps up again and controls the ball. B2 again comes down with

both feet inbounds and then carries the ball out of bounds at the B45.

Ruling: Third-and-10 on A40. Incomplete pass, as B2 is considered out of bounds when he touches the

ball the first time.

All that said, no one is going to coach their defense to try to stand out of bounds while covering a receiver so you can make a pass into a dead ball.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

While I somewhat understand the call, why is the wierd ones always coming from Hachuli? The guy seems to adore the attention. His explanations are so "look at me" and he flexes and poses when he makes the first down calls after his explanation.

 

[cst2006]

Defenders should be coached to try and keep a foot out of bounds on fade routes near the corner, while touching the wRs body..then both would be out of bounds.

This is another rule that needs fixed. I have no dog in the fight but would call that a TD everytime. The WR did his job by staying in bounds and making the catch..then he "completed the process after going down" The WR can`t control where the defender's body ends up..that is just too much to ask.

Being OOB (out of bounds) and touching a player does not make the player out of bounds.

Being OOB and touching a loose ball makes the ball dead.

Being OOB and touching a possessed ball does not make the ball dead.

So in your example, it would accomplish nothing.

If you lose control of a ball you'd started to catch, then regain control, you don't get credit for things you did prior to that point. The only part of what contributes to a completion that would count take place after he gets control of the ball sitting in his lap.

Since the ball was a loose ball while it was moving in his hand, and an OOB player touched it, the ball was already dead before he gained control of it in his lap.

Also, don't forget that it's impossible to "keep a foot out of bounds" while defending a jump ball.

You are still considered out of bounds until you re-establish yourself inbounds. So if you jump with one foot out, you are out until both feet land inbounds.

That's illegal touching. Bottom line, it's a good rule and Rivers and Brown owner should stop convincing themselves otherwise.

Fwiw I started the thread and I own neither, just was irritating to see a young guy make a great play and have it called back on what seems to me a situation that this particular rule should not be applied. Did not think of the scenarios previously mentioned regarding the ball bouncing off of a defender out of bounds and then a receiver catching it, and I agree that this rule makes sense for that situation. But watching that play, for anyone to say it makes sense for that to be ruled incomplete based on those circumstances boggles my mind. I understand the rule is in place and was applied correctly, I just completely disagree with it being applied in this situation, and think an amendment to the rule should be made to compensate for circumstances such as these, however rare they may be.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Fwiw I started the thread and I own neither, just was irritating to see a young guy make a great play and have it called back on what seems to me a situation that this particular rule should not be applied. Did not think of the scenarios previously mentioned regarding the ball bouncing off of a defender out of bounds and then a receiver catching it, and I agree that this rule makes sense for that situation. But watching that play, for anyone to say it makes sense for that to be ruled incomplete based on those circumstances boggles my mind. I understand the rule is in place and was applied correctly, I just completely disagree with it being applied in this situation, and think an amendment to the rule should be made to compensate for circumstances such as these, however rare they may be.

I knew watching the game that someone would jump into the SP and complain that it was a bad call.Quite the opposite: it was the right call. There is zero doubt. And the rule makes perfect sense, as explained earlier by someone quite clearly (Greg, I think it was).

 

[cst2006]

Fwiw I started the thread and I own neither, just was irritating to see a young guy make a great play and have it called back on what seems to me a situation that this particular rule should not be applied. Did not think of the scenarios previously mentioned regarding the ball bouncing off of a defender out of bounds and then a receiver catching it, and I agree that this rule makes sense for that situation. But watching that play, for anyone to say it makes sense for that to be ruled incomplete based on those circumstances boggles my mind. I understand the rule is in place and was applied correctly, I just completely disagree with it being applied in this situation, and think an amendment to the rule should be made to compensate for circumstances such as these, however rare they may be.

I knew watching the game that someone would jump into the SP and complain that it was a bad call.Quite the opposite: it was the right call. There is zero doubt. And the rule makes perfect sense, as explained earlier by someone quite clearly (Greg, I think it was).

Not once have I stated that it was a "bad call" but rather a bad rule, or one that should be amended to not apply in this particular instance. And no, it does not make perfect sense for that catch to be ruled incomplete, the defender's foot being out of bounds imho should not render that catch incomplete. Argue the letter of the law all you want, didn't pass the eyeball test for me, that was a catch.EDIT: Greg explained a valid situation in which this rule would apply, and I have no argument against that. Noone has explained why it makes any sense that this play wasn't a catch besides for saying "that's the rule". I do not believe that this situation was in mind when that rule was written, nor do I think the call was in the spirit of the rule that is being used to render it an incompletion.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A defensive back who is standing 3 foot out of bounds gets hit by a pass. The ball bounces off his shoulder pads and back into the field of play, where another player who is in bounds catches it.You are effectively saying that this scenario should be a complete pass because you don't want an out of bounds player touching a loose ball to result in a dead ball.

The rule was applied correctly on Thursday night, and I think it's a perfectly sensible rule.But the alternative you suggest would also be sensible, IMO. A loose ball touched by an out-of-bounds player — call him John — could be ruled out of bounds (and if it's a pass, incomplete) if it is ultimately controlled by a player on John's team, while not being ruled out of bounds if it is ultimately controlled by a player on the other team. I think that would work.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Fwiw I started the thread and I own neither, just was irritating to see a young guy make a great play and have it called back on what seems to me a situation that this particular rule should not be applied. Did not think of the scenarios previously mentioned regarding the ball bouncing off of a defender out of bounds and then a receiver catching it, and I agree that this rule makes sense for that situation. But watching that play, for anyone to say it makes sense for that to be ruled incomplete based on those circumstances boggles my mind. I understand the rule is in place and was applied correctly, I just completely disagree with it being applied in this situation, and think an amendment to the rule should be made to compensate for circumstances such as these, however rare they may be.

I knew watching the game that someone would jump into the SP and complain that it was a bad call.Quite the opposite: it was the right call. There is zero doubt. And the rule makes perfect sense, as explained earlier by someone quite clearly (Greg, I think it was).

Not once have I stated that it was a "bad call" but rather a bad rule, or one that should be amended to not apply in this particular instance. And no, it does not make perfect sense for that catch to be ruled incomplete, the defender's foot being out of bounds imho should not render that catch incomplete. Argue the letter of the law all you want, didn't pass the eyeball test for me, that was a catch.EDIT: Greg explained a valid situation in which this rule would apply, and I have no argument against that. Noone has explained why it makes any sense that this play wasn't a catch besides for saying "that's the rule". I do not believe that this situation was in mind when that rule was written, nor do I think the call was in the spirit of the rule that is being used to render it an incompletion.

A player who was out of bounds touched an uncontrolled ball. That makes the ball out of bounds, or dead. Simple. Effective. Easy.

 

[GregR]

Correct me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but I'm getting a sense maybe this is where the difference lies.

Group A is maybe looking at Brown as having made one attempt at a catch that started when he grasped the ball in his jump and ended with him grasping the ball in his lap. They are maybe thinking "this means an OOB defender can touch a ball as a receiver is catching it and it will be incomplete and that is wrong". Which if that is how the rules read I would agree with them. Luckily, they don't read that way.

Group B sees two different attempts at a catch. There was the first attempt where Brown lost control of the ball going to the ground. Then later there was a second attempt when he secured it in his lap. In between it was a loose ball. It doesn't matter if the ball was in his hands but moving out of control, if it was resting loose in his lap, or if the ball popped up 10 feet in the air before coming back down and being caught. During that time it was loose, and it wasn't until Brown again got control of it that a catch was being attempted for the 2nd time.

The rules read the way Group B is looking at it. Any control Brown had on the initial attempt, or having 2 feet down, are completely moot once the ball moves as he goes to the ground. If he is going to make a catch he has to completely satisfy anew all the criteria for a catch.

So, if my guess is correct about how Group A is looking at this, no, it isn't a case of touching a ball in the act of being caught makes it incomplete. The ball was down because an OOB player touched a LOOSE BALL. It was not down because an OOB player touched a ball that was under control in the act of being caught.

If Brown had retained control of the ball on the 1st attempted catch, it would not be out of bounds. Because an OOB player touching a ball in the possession of another player does not make the ball dead. Only touching a loose ball while OOB makes the play dead.

I don't know, does clarifying that distinction help anyone? The offense is not being unfairly taken advantage of. Conceptually what happened on the play is no different if the ball popped up 10 feet and Lito touched it during that time, versus if it was still against his body but not in his control when Lito touched it.