January 19, 200917 yr Are you talking about the TD catch that was taken away? I think there is a rule saying you must maintain possession after a catch even after you hit the ground.
January 19, 200917 yr The ground cannot cause a fumble, but that was not the rule. It was just an incomplete pass.
January 19, 200917 yr When did "the ground can't cause a fumble" stop being a rule? Wasn't a fumble, incomplete pass
January 19, 200917 yr They weren't saying it was a fubmle Jim, they said that he didn't have possession of the ball when it came out. If hit by a defensive player while making the catch, you have to come up with the ball in the NFL.
January 19, 200917 yr Are you talking about the TD catch that was taken away? I think there is a rule saying you must maintain possession after a catch even after you hit the ground. It has to do with being hit by a defensive player while making the catch as well. NFL only rule.
January 19, 200917 yr Author Same difference. Bogus call. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but it's still garbage. He had complete control of it until the ground forced it out. It's exactly like a "ground can't cause ..." play in that regard.
January 19, 200917 yr Same difference. Bogus call. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but it's still garbage. He had complete control of it until the ground forced it out. It's exactly like a "ground can't cause ..." play in that regard. Do we need to look up the rule? It's not garbage if it's according to the rules, which it is. In that regard it just means that you don't like a rule in the game.
January 19, 200917 yr Author Do we need to look up the rule? It's not garbage if it's according to the rules, which it is. In that regard it just means that you don't like a rule in the game. Then it's a stupid rule. It should mirror the fumble rule. Again, he took two steps.
January 19, 200917 yr Then it's a stupid rule. It should mirror the fumble rule. Again, he took two steps. I agree Jim... He caught the ball and went to the ground. It's a shame that after all that work it was an incomplete pass just because it touched the ground. And I dont just say that because I'm rooting for the Steelers. I've said that everytime the rules comes up regardless who it is.
January 19, 200917 yr Then it's a stupid rule. It should mirror the fumble rule. Again, he took two steps. Write someone man, I dunno what to tell you and I agree with you in my mind it should've been a catch, but according to the rules....
January 19, 200917 yr Jim, I agree with you, as I too thought it was a catch and then a ground forced fumble, but I am not an NFL official.
January 19, 200917 yr I think the call stunk, he made the catch, and the ball crossed the goal line, should have been six.
January 19, 200917 yr From the time it hit his hands, he took three steps. How many do you have to take for it to be a catch? I understand the "complete the catch" rule but that's usually on the sidelines when they only had two feet down in the first place. It seemed like an odd call.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.