January 19, 200917 yr I was at a bowling ally and could not hear the T.V when this happened. What was the ruling or the explanation of the ruling? I thought it was a catch.
January 19, 200917 yr I think the call stunk, he made the catch, and the ball crossed the goal line, should have been six. My thoughts exactly.
January 19, 200917 yr Definitely a bogus call...Agreed.. Can't understand why they could not get it right even with the replay...
January 19, 200917 yr Agreed.. Can't understand why they could not get it right even with the replay... They didn't get it wrong, it was the right call according to the rule. It's not a call that I think any of us feel should be the right call, but according to how the rule was explained.
January 19, 200917 yr How many steps(with control of the ball)is required for a completion?? I understood the explanation but that explanation is not what happened on the field..
January 19, 200917 yr How many steps(with control of the ball)is required for a completion?? I understood the explanation but that explanation is not what happened on the field.. It has to do with them being touched by the defender while making the catch. NFL rules they're not actually down by contact while still assuming possession of the ball so they have to come up with the ball. It's not a good rule, but it is still the rule.
January 19, 200917 yr It has to do with them being touched by the defender while making the catch. NFL rules they're not actually down by contact while still assuming possession of the ball so they have to come up with the ball. It's not a good rule, but it is still the rule. This is one of those areas where it's a stupid rule. If a guy catches the ball, gets 2 feet down, makes a football move, gets hit, the ball flys out, it's a fumble. In this case guy catches the ball, gets 2 feet down, makes a football move, gets hit, hits the ground ,the ball pops out but it's incomplete. If he had gotten hit as he was diving to the endzone they would have ruled it a fumble because he got two feet down and made a football move. Stupid contraditory rules.
January 19, 200917 yr This is one of those areas where it's a stupid rule. If a guy catches the ball, gets 2 feet down, makes a football move, gets hit, the ball flys out, it's a fumble. In this case guy catches the ball, gets 2 feet down, makes a football move, gets hit, hits the ground ,the ball pops out but it's incomplete. If he had gotten hit as he was diving to the endzone they would have ruled it a fumble because he got two feet down and made a football move. Stupid contraditory rules. :thumb:Yup agreed.
January 19, 200917 yr How many steps(with control of the ball)is required for a completion?? I understood the explanation but that explanation is not what happened on the field.. Yes it was. He was hit as he caught the ball which caused him to start falling foward and take the steps trying to get to the endzone. If he had tucked the ball away instead of trying to score by stretching the ball out wouldn't have happened that way probably. That call was not nearly as bad as the roughing the kicker call that never happened. :argue:
January 19, 200917 yr The issue was that he was being tackled IMO. Had he made the catch and then been contacted, different call. He was being contacted when he caught the ball, the rule, if I'm not mistaken, says he must maintain possession through the catch which includes landing. Frankly, he had 3 points of contact if you include the hand down as he extended to cross the goal line. In hind sight, it would have been nice to simply cradle it and land on his back at the 1/2 yd. line. But he was trying to make a play, can't fault the guy for that. At least he didn't let it slip right thru his fingers.:irked:
January 19, 200917 yr Yes it was. He was hit as he caught the ball which caused him to start falling foward and take the steps trying to get to the endzone. If he had tucked the ball away instead of trying to score by stretching the ball out wouldn't have happened that way probably. That call was not nearly as bad as the roughing the kicker call that never happened. :argue:No doubt. Worst I've seen this season since the Ed Hochuli/San Diego incident.
January 19, 200917 yr If the ground can't cause a fumble why should it be able to cause an incompletion ? I never understood that.
January 19, 200917 yr The issue was that he was being tackled IMO. Had he made the catch and then been contacted, different call. He was being contacted when he caught the ball, the rule, if I'm not mistaken, says he must maintain possession through the catch which includes landing. Frankly, he had 3 points of contact if you include the hand down as he extended to cross the goal line. In hind sight, it would have been nice to simply cradle it and land on his back at the 1/2 yd. line. But he was trying to make a play, can't fault the guy for that. At least he didn't let it slip right thru his fingers.:irked: I still think had he been hit by someone else as he was trying to stretch for the endzone, and the ball came out, they would have ruled it a fumble.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.