OT-How Is This Not A Catch & TD?

[NJCardFan]

It is because he went to the ground. If he stays on his feet it is a TD even if the guy kicks it out of his hands. I understand those that say it should be a TD but under the current rules it isn't.

With all due respect, did you even watch the play? He catches the pass, maintains control, gets one foot, then the other down, stretches the ball over the goal line, THEN has his feet knocked out from under him, falls down, has ball hit the defenders feat and pops out. He did everything but do the Lambeau Leap.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

With all due respect, did you even watch the play? He catches the pass, maintains control, gets one foot, then the other down, stretches the ball over the goal line, THEN has his feet knocked out from under him, falls down, has ball hit the defenders feat and pops out. He did everything but do the Lambeau Leap.

If you are a running back, all you have to do is even touch the line once if you have established possession. For some strange reason, that same logic isn't applied to receivers.

 

[Snakester]

Td all day long and twice on Sunday. I watched that game. The refs got it wrong.

 

[NJCardFan]

If you are a running back, all you have to do is even touch the line once if you have established possession. For some strange reason, that same logic isn't applied to receivers.

The NFL screwed up on the Dez Bryant catch/no catch from the playoffs last year and now they're going out of their way to justify it by calling plays like this a no catch. It's the same with the tuck rule. They know they got it wrong and worked for years to justify it until they finally had to admit they were wrong by changing the rule. The only way to fix it would be for the NFL to adopt the NHL rule which is that the puck has to completely cross the goal line for it to be a goal.

 

[AZfaninMN]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

That's not a td the same reason this one isn't. This is the one that started it all. The rule is u have to maintain possession all the way through the ground n here he steps twice n spins but when he goes to the ground n the ball pops out it's incomplete

 

[Chaz]

With all due respect, did you even watch the play? He catches the pass, maintains control, gets one foot, then the other down, stretches the ball over the goal line, THEN has his feet knocked out from under him, falls down, has ball hit the defenders feat and pops out. He did everything but do the Lambeau Leap.

I didn't say I agree. You asked and I am telling you this is how they interpret the current rules. It is all within the process of the catch while going to the ground. Just like the Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson play. If it is ultimately incomplete then it can't be a touchdown.

 

[cardpa]

I think the rules are inconsistent at best. In the case of a RB or a receiver running the ball in and stretching into the end zone the rule is once it crosses the plane of the goal line it's a TD no matter what happens after, yet here that does not apply. Seems to me these rules are in direct conflict of each other. Here he caught the ball, established position (both feet down on the ground) and then turned and stretched the ball into the end zone. Why should anything after that matter?

 

[cardncubfan]

I didn't say I agree. You asked and I am telling you this is how they interpret the current rules. It is all within the process of the catch while going to the ground. Just like the Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson play. If it is ultimately incomplete then it can't be a touchdown.

Agree. The rules state that you must maintain possession through out the catch. Which means if you roll around on the ground & lose the ball it's not a catch. Don't agree with some of the rulings, but it's at the discretion of the ref. I think the Calvin Johnson one was a catch & he was merely putting the ball down as he was getting up but the refs thought otherwise.

 

[sunsfan88]

Simple. He's on my fantasy team.

Mine as well

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Agree. The rules state that you must maintain possession through out the catch. Which means if you roll around on the ground & lose the ball it's not a catch. Don't agree with some of the rulings, but it's at the discretion of the ref. I think the Calvin Johnson one was a catch & he was merely putting the ball down as he was getting up but the refs thought otherwise.

Again, two feet down, turned around, lunged for the end zone with clear possession. That is a catch in any logical sense of the word.

 

[cardncubfan]

Again, two feet down, turned around, lunged for the end zone with clear possession. That is a catch in any logical sense of the word.

I agree it should have been a touchdown. Just saying that plays like that are at the mercy of the ref & difficult to turn over the ruling.

 

[Chaz]

Atlanta had another one of these today.
Maybe what they need is to review or tweak what constitutes a catch and football move. The problem is how do you do that and not introduce more ambiguity and confusing "judgement calls".

 

[JCSunsfan]

The complete/incomplete call is always going to be a judgment call. There s just no way around it.

 

[WisconsinCard]

To me the entire rule is stupid. If the ground can't cause a fumble then the ground shouldn't be able to cause an incomplete pass. The receiver has possession of the ball and hits the ground they should be down by contact. If they fall to the ground on their own then (the league would have to decide) is it a fumble or and incomplete pass.

 

[Buckybird]

The complete/incomplete call is always going to be a judgment call. There s just no way around it.

Isn't every call a judgement call?
Look up the definition.

 

[Buckybird]

To me the entire rule is stupid. If the ground can't cause a fumble then the ground shouldn't be able to cause an incomplete pass. The receiver has possession of the ball and hits the ground they should be down by contact. If they fall to the ground on their own then (the league would have to decide) is it a fumble or and incomplete pass.

Yep

It's so contradicting. The last 3 I've seen have been no different than a RB reaching across the line & immediately getting it stripped or fumbling.

The leagues rules are so vague & each official interprets it & calls it different each week, each game.