Why it was indisputably NOT a 1st Down... (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

A few Patriot fans are still upside about the 'bad call' on Faulk's catch that was 'clearly' a first down.

Not only is it where he controls the ball, but also where he 'completes' the catch (meaning he gets 2 feet down or is down on the play). The replay clearly shows:

1) Faulk gets two hands on the ball, with 2 feet down, past the first down

2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.

3) The catch (ie possession) is now not official until he maintains possession through hitting the ground (as he is falling), and therefore the ball was spotted a half-yard shy of the first down.

If the play was reviewed, the proper call would have been to spot the ball inside the 29 where Faulk hit the ground and maintained possession. Even if you believe he might have regained control past the 30 (no clear evidence of that), the call was a generous spot for the Patriots.

 

[RebelINS]

Does this warrant another thread? Really? Post in one of the other threads.

 

[jon_mx]

Does this warrant another thread? Really? Post in one of the other threads.

Yeah, but which one??? The "WTF was Belichick thinking?", the official game thread, the Brady/Manning thread, or the NE/Indy finish thread???

 

[The Redbeard]

Does this warrant another thread? Really? Post in one of the other threads.

Yeah, but which one??? The "WTF was Belichick thinking?", the official game thread, the Brady/Manning thread, or the NE/Indy finish thread???

You're right. The answer was certainly to start a 5th thread.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

A few Patriot fans are still upside about the 'bad call' on Faulk's catch that was 'clearly' a first down.Not only is it where he controls the ball, but also where he 'completes' the catch (meaning he gets 2 feet down or is down on the play). The replay clearly shows:1) Faulk gets two hands on the ball, with 2 feet down, past the first down2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.3) The catch (ie possession) is now not official until he maintains possession through hitting the ground (as he is falling), and therefore the ball was spotted a half-yard shy of the first down.If the play was reviewed, the proper call would have been to spot the ball inside the 29 where Faulk hit the ground and maintained possession. Even if you believe he might have regained control past the 30 (no clear evidence of that), the call was a generous spot for the Patriots.

This thread makes me upside.

 

[Eric]

Does this warrant another thread? Really? Post in one of the other threads.

Yeah, but which one??? The "WTF was Belichick thinking?", the official game thread, the Brady/Manning thread, or the NE/Indy finish thread???

How about ANY ONE OF THOSE? 99% of FBGs don't give a #### about this.

 

[Sleeping King]

What does it matter where you think they should have placed the ball? They placed it at the 28. The Patriots didn't get the first and they lost the game. The end.

 

[GloryDaze]

2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.

So a couple of DBs could catch a receiver in mid air, carry him back to the end zone, and drop him for a safety?

 

[scrumptrulescent]

A few Patriot fans are still upside about the 'bad call' on Faulk's catch that was 'clearly' a first down.Not only is it where he controls the ball, but also where he 'completes' the catch (meaning he gets 2 feet down or is down on the play). The replay clearly shows:1) Faulk gets two hands on the ball, with 2 feet down, past the first down2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.3) The catch (ie possession) is now not official until he maintains possession through hitting the ground (as he is falling), and therefore the ball was spotted a half-yard shy of the first down.If the play was reviewed, the proper call would have been to spot the ball inside the 29 where Faulk hit the ground and maintained possession. Even if you believe he might have regained control past the 30 (no clear evidence of that), the call was a generous spot for the Patriots.

This thread makes me upside.

 

[jon_mx]

2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.

So a couple of DBs could catch a receiver in mid air, carry him back to the end zone, and drop him for a safety?

Forward progress is not an exact science. In that case the ref would have to judge at what point he thought the WR at possession of the ball. But in this case where there wasn't anyone being carried, the WR has to have control and get his second foot down or hit the ground to establish possession. The more questionable call was the PI call that happened a bit later. It did kind of look like the defender was looking for the ball and might have been making a play for the ball.

 

[GloryDaze]

Forward progress is not an exact science. In that case the ref would have to judge at what point he thought the WR at possession of the ball. But in this case where there wasn't anyone being carried, the WR has to have control and get his second foot down or hit the ground to establish possession.

Wow, you must be fishing, sorry, you got me.In case you're not, you are confusing possession with a legal catch and are way off based with your entire argument.

 

[tones]

Calls happen so you make plays so as to minimize ones that don’t go your way.

While I for one would have liked the referee who was looking at the ball and both players instead of the one who was closer and might not have had a clear view based on the receivers and DB having their backs to him make it. A little surprised they didn’t conference… Oh well, NE had chances pick in end zone, fumble by Maroney into the end zone, and settling for a field goal to go up 13. Those were all big change of events that would have stuck a fork in Indy.

And in the end do the Pats think they can beat Indy – YES! Does Indy think they can beat NE – YES! So nothing gained except perhaps home field for the AFC Championship if both of them make it that far. Let’s hope they get to play again in the playoffs because it is just so much better than to watch games like Chicago and San Francisco or Dallas and Green Bay isn’t it?

 

[jon_mx]

Forward progress is not an exact science. In that case the ref would have to judge at what point he thought the WR at possession of the ball. But in this case where there wasn't anyone being carried, the WR has to have control and get his second foot down or hit the ground to establish possession.

Wow, you must be fishing, sorry, you got me.In case you're not, you are confusing possession with a legal catch and are way off based with your entire argument.

I am not confusing anything, it is how the officials spot the ball.

 

[jon_mx]

Calls happen so you make plays so as to minimize ones that don’t go your way. While I for one would have liked the referee who was looking at the ball and both players instead of the one who was closer and might not have had a clear view based on the receivers and DB having their backs to him make it. A little surprised they didn’t conference… Oh well, NE had chances pick in end zone, fumble by Maroney into the end zone, and settling for a field goal to go up 13. Those were all big change of events that would have stuck a fork in Indy.And in the end do the Pats think they can beat Indy – YES! Does Indy think they can beat NE – YES! So nothing gained except perhaps home field for the AFC Championship if both of them make it that far. Let’s hope they get to play again in the playoffs because it is just so much better than to watch games like Chicago and San Francisco or Dallas and Green Bay isn’t it?

The Pats not only lost home field advantage, they may not get a first round bye which is the bigger lose. They really need to be NO now to have a good shot at the first round bye.

 

[GloryDaze]

Forward progress is not an exact science. In that case the ref would have to judge at what point he thought the WR at possession of the ball. But in this case where there wasn't anyone being carried, the WR has to have control and get his second foot down or hit the ground to establish possession.

Wow, you must be fishing, sorry, you got me.In case you're not, you are confusing possession with a legal catch and are way off based with your entire argument.

I am not confusing anything, it is how the officials spot the ball.

No, it's not. Possession establishes forward progress. Two feet down establishes a legal catch, not possession.Officials spot the ball at forward progress on any legal catch, regardless of where or when his feet come down.

 

[GregR_2]

2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.

So a couple of DBs could catch a receiver in mid air, carry him back to the end zone, and drop him for a safety?

There is a rule that explicitly covers carrying a player out of bounds, though it doesn't specifically talk about carrying a player to the end zone.But I'd think that the rule about carrying out of bounds would make it a catch at the spot he began being carried, and so the ball should be returned to that spot based on forward progress.

Page 51, Item 6: Carried out of BoundsIf a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass.

 

[GregR_2]

A few Patriot fans are still upside about the 'bad call' on Faulk's catch that was 'clearly' a first down.

Not only is it where he controls the ball, but also where he 'completes' the catch (meaning he gets 2 feet down or is down on the play). The replay clearly shows:

1) Faulk gets two hands on the ball, with 2 feet down, past the first down

2) He then bobbles the ball, with one foot on the ground. The NFL rule of possession states that the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet down in bounds before a catch can be ruled legal.

3) The catch (ie possession) is now not official until he maintains possession through hitting the ground (as he is falling), and therefore the ball was spotted a half-yard shy of the first down.

If the play was reviewed, the proper call would have been to spot the ball inside the 29 where Faulk hit the ground and maintained possession. Even if you believe he might have regained control past the 30 (no clear evidence of that), the call was a generous spot for the Patriots.

I'm the opposite of a Patriots fan, but I think the spot was incorrect. It's hard to tell which foot you're talking about without labeling somehow. His feet hit the ground three times over the span of the catch. It seems like you're only mentioning the first 2 feet down, one of which doesn't count towards possession because of the bobbling.The best replay for viewing it, IMHO can be seen from the end zone cam behind Brady, right around 5:25 in this video: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...olts-highlights

First, watch that replay a few times and just watch the ball to establish that once the ball is pinned to his body it is controlled through the remainder of the play. Just establish that part before we get to looking at where his feet are.

Once that's done, now walk through the play. He first touches the ball (bobbling it) with his right foot on the ground, as shown in this screen capture from that video: http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu228/G...right-foot1.jpg By the time he gains possession by pinning it to his body, that right foot has left the ground so won't count towards the catch.

His left foot comes down, and is on the ground, when the ball is pinned to his body and it doesn't move from that spot the rest of the replay. So he establishes control of it, with his left foot on the ground. So possession and 1 foot (left foot) down so far, as shown in this screen capture: http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu228/G...s-left-foot.jpg

A half second later he's being knocked to the ground, and traveling upfield as he does. At this point his right foot clearly hits the ground for the 2nd time just before his body goes horizontal, as shown in this screen capture: http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu228/G...right-foot2.jpg Ball still pinned to the body, not moving, still in control. He's now had control with first his left and now his right feet down.

At that point is a catch unless he subsequently goes to the ground and loses control. If he goes to the ground and loses it completely then it's incomplete. If he goes to the ground and loses control but recovers it, it would be complete and down where he recovers it (which would clearly not be a first down). But neither of those happen. He goes to the ground and maintains control the entire time. So the ball should be down at the spot he established control and his 2nd foot down since it was his furthest forward progress. To get that spot you have to combine it with the other replay. I'd call it right over the 30 yard line and it would come down to a measurement. They still might not make it by an inch or two, but that spot is clearly a yard closer than where they spotted the ball.

Again, far from a Pats fan. I can't see blaming the ref for where he spotted it, you just couldn't tell all that from the back of the player at full speed. Really the only thing for someone to complain about on the play is why the Pats needed to use a timeout after a kick off to where they then didn't have one available to challenge.

 

[sjacksonfan]

If the 30 yard line was the goal line and the play had been reviewed, it would have been a touchdown. It absolutely was a 1st down. The ref who spotted the ball couldn't see the ball couldn't see when Faulk actually caught it which was at the 30 and a half yard line. Yes, Faulk did not catch the ball cleanly, but he did have possession beyond the 30 before he was driven back to the ground. The call was blown.