PDA

View Full Version : Football How the fuck is this an INT?


-King-
11-18-2009, 10:48 PM
I'm revisiting the Sunday games and I came across this play. I saw it on Sunday but didn't think anything of it. But now that I really watch it, how the fuck is this an INT?

1)Clayton clearly has possession, elbow down, and a defender had touched him down before the ball being ripped.

2) Even the ref said Clayton had possession, so even if it is a turnover(which it's not) it would be a fumble right?

3) Is this the worst season ever in the NFL officiating wise?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JJ9ir9wZLP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JJ9ir9wZLP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

KCChiefsMan
11-18-2009, 10:51 PM
that's BS

Lonewolf Ed
11-18-2009, 10:58 PM
The ref spoke like he had just started reading the rule book a few days before. He didn't sound confident at all. :shake:

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-18-2009, 11:16 PM
I don't know how they could get any conclusive evidence from that replay with that ref's big fat head in the way.

jAZ
11-18-2009, 11:21 PM
I couldn't hear everything he said in the final explanation, but from what I understand the review is whether the ruling on the field was correct. So the question is, was their enough visual evidence to say that it was NOT and "incomplete pass" (the ruling on the field).

Given the angle we see here, the ref walks in front of the camera at exactly the moment we need to see in order to judge exactly what happend. That's would seem to prohibit ANY reason for over turning the ruling on the play, no matter what might appear to be happening based on the shot before and after the ref blocks the camera.

-King-
11-18-2009, 11:32 PM
I couldn't hear everything he said in the final explanation, but from what I understand the review is whether the ruling on the field was correct. So the question is, was their enough visual evidence to say that it was NOT and "incomplete pass" (the ruling on the field).

Given the angle we see here, the ref walks in front of the camera at exactly the moment we need to see in order to judge exactly what happend. That's would seem to prohibit ANY reason for over turning the ruling on the play, no matter what might appear to be happening based on the shot before and after the ref blocks the camera.

Also, Claytons elbow hits the ground long before the ball comes out. Play is dead at that point. The referee blocking the view doesn't matter because the play was dead soon as that elbow touched.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 12:17 AM
Holy Crap that was a horrible call. How the fuck do you miss a call like that with replay?

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 12:21 AM
That's amazing quality video. Wow.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 12:28 AM
Given the angle we see here, the ref walks in front of the camera at exactly the moment we need to see in order to judge exactly what happend. That's would seem to prohibit ANY reason for over turning the ruling on the play, no matter what might appear to be happening based on the shot before and after the ref blocks the camera.You can see the WR is obviously down right before the ref blocks the shot.

bowener
11-19-2009, 12:49 AM
I believe there are a few points missing from all of your arguments against it being an INT.

First, it was not a ball thrown by Peyton Manning, thus it CAN be an INT.

Second, it was also not a ball thrown by Tom Brady, thus it CAN be an INT.

Third, the WR never had possession of the ball, thus incomplete at best for the offense, and while the offender was being taken down he was losing possession of the ball; the ball never touched the ground, striking a defenders body instead. Said defender rolled as the ball struck him, bouncing the ball into the quite aware hands of Mr. Jason Taylor, he then ran it in for 6 points.

Nowhere did the ball touch the ground; the call on the field was incomplete pass, which it was, however upon review the booth official realized that the ball never once was dead and did in fact result in a pick 6.

At least that is my $.02.

UKMike
11-19-2009, 12:56 AM
How is the play even reviewable? If they rule the pass incomplete (I don't have sound so may be wrong here) then effectively the play stops at the point of the incomplete pass, you can't then revert back to something that happened after the play was effectively dead, right?

jidar
11-19-2009, 01:08 AM
It's an INT

It has always been the case that a receiver falling to the ground has to maintain possession of the ball all the way through the fall. Even if you catch and tuck the ball in on the way down, if you don't hold onto it when you hit the ground it is still not a complete pass. In this case he caught, tucked, fell and when he hit the ball popped out, at this point it's a bobbled pass and still in play.

Dante84
11-19-2009, 02:36 AM
It's an INT
In this case he caught, tucked, fell and when he hit the ball popped out, at this point it's a bobbled pass and still in play.

Alright, so you say he has possession before it pops out. Based on him having possession, when his knee/elbow/back/butt/shoulder are touching the ground because of contact with an opponent, it is a tackle and the play is over.

The tackle occurred before the ball is jarred loose, ending the play. That should not have been ruled an INT.

jjjayb
11-19-2009, 06:02 AM
Alright, so you say he has possession before it pops out. Based on him having possession, when his knee/elbow/back/butt/shoulder are touching the ground because of contact with an opponent, it is a tackle and the play is over.

The tackle occurred before the ball is jarred loose, ending the play. That should not have been ruled an INT.

Wrong. The rule changed more than a few years ago. Even if the player has possesion going down to the ground, the player has to maintain possesion all the way through. Even after he hits the ground.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:17 AM
How is the play even reviewable? If they rule the pass incomplete (I don't have sound so may be wrong here) then effectively the play stops at the point of the incomplete pass, you can't then revert back to something that happened after the play was effectively dead, right?

That's just flat wrong.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:22 AM
jjjayb has it right. The INT ruling is correct because the ball never touched the ground. The play is over when the receiver has possession and is down by contact or out of bounds. Or, of course, the ball has hit the ground.

Here, the ball never hits the ground. The player could have -- even while flat on his back and having a defender wrapped all over him -- completed the catch by securing the ball. He didn't, and instead the ball, without touching the ground, pops up and is caught by a Dolphins player.

Do not confuse down by contact with out of bounds. The moment anything/anyone that is touching the ball is out of bounds, then the play is immediately dead. To be down by contact you must have POSSESSION. As the player didn't complete the act of catching the ball, he never had possession and as a result it could not have been a fumble. Had the ball hit the ground under those circumstances, the play would've been dead immediately.

UKMike
11-19-2009, 06:22 AM
That's just flat wrong.

why?

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:31 AM
Alright, so you say he has possession before it pops out. Based on him having possession, when his knee/elbow/back/butt/shoulder are touching the ground because of contact with an opponent, it is a tackle and the play is over.

The tackle occurred before the ball is jarred loose, ending the play. That should not have been ruled an INT.

So hypothetically if WR is laying on his back and a defensive player is for whatever reason lying across his legs, it's impossible for the WR to catch the ball under any circumstances?

That's not correct.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:34 AM
why?

A play isn't over just because a WR is down and a player is sitting on top of him.

Let's take a different hypoethical -- Reggie Wayne has tripped and is lying flat on his ass. The cornerback fell over him and is lying on top of him.

Then the ball -- throw by the QB a bit late, comes whipping in, and bounces off one of those guys lying on the ground (doesnt' matter which one), pops into the air and is caught by another defensive player and run back for a TD.

That's basically the exact same thing as what's going on here.

Play isn't dead because the player WITH POSSESSION OF THE BALL isn't down by contact. He doesn't have possession yet, so he can't fumble (by definition) and he can't end the play by being down by contact (by definition).

UKMike
11-19-2009, 06:43 AM
A play isn't over just because a WR is down and a player is sitting on top of him.

Let's take a different hypoethical -- Reggie Wayne has tripped and is lying flat on his ass. The cornerback fell over him and is lying on top of him.

Then the ball -- throw by the QB a bit late, comes whipping in, and bounces off one of those guys lying on the ground (doesnt' matter which one), pops into the air and is caught by another defensive player and run back for a TD.

That's basically the exact same thing as what's going on here.

Play isn't dead because the player WITH POSSESSION OF THE BALL isn't down by contact. He doesn't have possession yet, so he can't fumble (by definition) and he can't end the play by being down by contact (by definition).

I agree your example would be an INT, but in this play it looks like the receiver has possession before he even starts going down, so as soon as he touches the gruond the play is dead Unless you think he got possession then lost it again before hitting the ground, which would make it a fumble.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:43 AM
I should note that I don't have volume hear, so I couldn't hear the refs explanation. If he said that the WR had possession, then I assume he just misspoke because that makes no sense. Also, I don't see how he actually had possession because it didn't look to me that he did.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 06:47 AM
By the way, why the hell isn't that ref who gets his head in the way watching the action on the field? Isn't that like, their job?

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:50 AM
I agree your example would be an INT, but in this play it looks like the receiver has possession before he even starts going down, so as soon as he touches the gruond the play is dead Unless you think he got possession then lost it again before hitting the ground, which would make it a fumble.

I'd say no possession on that catch. The rules for completing a catch in the NFL anymore are ridiculous. To complete a catch, you must (1) catch the ball, (2) with both feet inbounds, and (3) either make a "football move" or maintain possession through the act of being tackled ot the ground.

He does not make a football move here, and I don't think he maintained possession long enough through the act of going to the ground upon being tackled.

If he did maintain possession and it was a completed catch, then it's not a fumble (down by contact) nor an interception (not possible after the catch is completed).

The ruling is weird, but again, that's the NFL rules these days -- completing a catch is brutal. They don't even have force-outs anymore, so if a player jumps along the sidelines and catches the ball and clearly would have landed with both feet in bounds, but a defensive player pushes him out of bounds, it is NOT a catch, but rather just an incomplete pass.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:53 AM
By the way, why the hell isn't that ref who gets his head in the way watching the action on the field? Isn't that like, their job?

As you can see from the white hat, that is THE referree. At the very beginning of the play you can see that he is, as he should be, behind the LOS on the offensive side of the ball, but in this case offset to the offensive right. It seems he was running towards the LOS for some reason.

Each ref has a specific area they're supposed to be looking at. They're nto like us fans, just keeping an eye on the ball.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 06:59 AM
why?

I should also note that the post I said was wrong was wrong because he was saying it wasn't reviewable. Matters regarding completed catches, etc. are absolutely reviewable.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 07:10 AM
As you can see from the white hat, that is THE referree. At the very beginning of the play you can see that he is, as he should be, behind the LOS on the offensive side of the ball, but in this case offset to the offensive right. It seems he was running towards the LOS for some reason.

Each ref has a specific area they're supposed to be looking at. They're nto like us fans, just keeping an eye on the ball.
Mmmkay, I guess so, at first it seemed like he was heading towards the sideline, the camera angle is playing tricks with my eyes.

UKMike
11-19-2009, 07:11 AM
I should also note that the post I said was wrong was wrong because he was saying it wasn't reviewable. Matters regarding completed catches, etc. are absolutely reviewable.


I've no doubt that the decision between complete and incomplete pass is reviewable, but that never creates a problem because the play is always over when the initial decision is made. In this case the play carries on, so effectively the review makes the play longer than it was, beyond when it originally finished. In this play some defensive players even stopped, though I think the refs took so long making a decision initially that the play was never blown dead so I guess it's their own fault. I could well be completely wrong on this though.

Regarding posession, it totally depends on what you consider a football move, I don't really know, but to me it seems like what he did there should be enough to be considered a catch, even though it might not be by the rules.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 08:23 AM
I've no doubt that the decision between complete and incomplete pass is reviewable, but that never creates a problem because the play is always over when the initial decision is made. In this case the play carries on, so effectively the review makes the play longer than it was, beyond when it originally finished. In this play some defensive players even stopped, though I think the refs took so long making a decision initially that the play was never blown dead so I guess it's their own fault. I could well be completely wrong on this though.

Regarding posession, it totally depends on what you consider a football move, I don't really know, but to me it seems like what he did there should be enough to be considered a catch, even though it might not be by the rules.

Two things -- first they changed the rules a couple years ago and it has created tremendous problems due to the use of replay. BB, for example, was pretty unhappy because it creates the possibility of playing THROUGH the whistle. In other words, that the play might not be dead even though whistles have blown.

Second, there's no football move. He caught it and got immediately blown up. A football move is to take a step or two with the ball, or at least start to turn upfield, that kind of thing. Getting crunched, falling, and losing the ball isn't going to work. I don't think it's even close in this case, based on rulings I've seen over the last few years.

Chiefnj2
11-19-2009, 08:31 AM
IMHO, if you catch the ball, have possession of the ball and your elbow touches the ground, it should be a catch. If a defender is touching you at that point - you are down by contact.

UKMike
11-19-2009, 08:41 AM
Two things -- first they changed the rules a couple years ago and it has created tremendous problems due to the use of replay. BB, for example, was pretty unhappy because it creates the possibility of playing THROUGH the whistle. In other words, that the play might not be dead even though whistles have blown.

Second, there's no football move. He caught it and got immediately blown up. A football move is to take a step or two with the ball, or at least start to turn upfield, that kind of thing. Getting crunched, falling, and losing the ball isn't going to work. I don't think it's even close in this case, based on rulings I've seen over the last few years.

Sure you're right on both counts, but both are stupid IMHO.

jjjayb
11-19-2009, 09:07 AM
IMHO, if you catch the ball, have possession of the ball and your elbow touches the ground, it should be a catch. If a defender is touching you at that point - you are down by contact.

Unfortunately, your opinion isn't what's in the rule book.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 09:14 AM
IMHO, if you catch the ball, have possession of the ball and your elbow touches the ground, it should be a catch. If a defender is touching you at that point - you are down by contact.

That's fine as your opinion, but dems not da rules in the NFL.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 09:20 AM
jjjayb has it right. The INT ruling is correct because the ball never touched the ground. The play is over when the receiver has possession and is down by contact or out of bounds. Or, of course, the ball has hit the ground.

Here, the ball never hits the ground. The player could have -- even while flat on his back and having a defender wrapped all over him -- completed the catch by securing the ball. He didn't, and instead the ball, without touching the ground, pops up and is caught by a Dolphins player.

Do not confuse down by contact with out of bounds. The moment anything/anyone that is touching the ball is out of bounds, then the play is immediately dead. To be down by contact you must have POSSESSION. As the player didn't complete the act of catching the ball, he never had possession and as a result it could not have been a fumble. Had the ball hit the ground under those circumstances, the play would've been dead immediately.I know the ball never touches the ground. My argument is that he appears to have the ball as he is contacted by a defender and the ground, which would make the play over.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 09:29 AM
I should add, the play being over as in down by contact. I understand the newer rules concerning catching the ball and maintaining possession throughout the play. Well, there is a contradiction in rules here then. Isnt the play over after a player is down by contact?

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 09:37 AM
I should add, the play being over as in down by contact. I understand the newer rules concerning catching the ball and maintaining possession throughout the play. Well, there is a contradiction in rules here then. Isnt the play over after a player is down by contact?
It is a contradiction, it's a situation where they changed a rule to correct a problem, and in turn created another one. It's really a catch-22, they need a way to establish possession, but they can't apply a single rule to cover all possible scenarios.

bobbything
11-19-2009, 09:39 AM
I just watched this 10 times and don't see anything that suggests an interception or a fumble. Catch, both feet down, defender tackles the player, players elbow hits the ground, ball pops out afterwards. It's a catch and down by contact. This was a blown call.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 09:41 AM
I just watched this 10 times and don't see anything that suggests an interception or a fumble. Catch, both feet down, defender tackles the player, players elbow hits the ground, ball pops out afterwards. It's a catch and down by contact. This was a blown call.
You obviously don't understand the NFL's rule about establishing possession then.

bobbything
11-19-2009, 09:43 AM
You obviously don't understand the NFL's rule about establishing possession then.
What is it? That you have to take 10 steps before you have possession?

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 09:43 AM
It is a contradiction, it's a situation where they changed a rule to correct a problem, and in turn created another one. It's really a catch-22, they need a way to establish possession, but they can't apply a single rule to cover all possible scenarios.Yep. In my mind, if you maintain possession to the ground, and contacted by defender, it should be a catch. Just because you lose the ball AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN TACKLED should be irrelevant.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 09:46 AM
What is it? That you have to take 10 steps before you have possession?The newer rules say you must maintain possession throughout the play. I agree, its stupid. If you are down by contact, you are down and the play is over. Because of that crazy rule, you have retarded calls like this.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 09:49 AM
What is it? That you have to take 10 steps before you have possession?
You need to take at least one, or make some type of "football move", and he did neither. So by the rule it is not a catch, which means it has to be either an incompletion, or an interception. In order for it to be an incompletion the ball has to hit the ground, which it did not, so by process of elimination it's an interception.

I'm not saying I agree with the rule, but it is what it is.

bobbything
11-19-2009, 09:51 AM
The newer rules say you must maintain possession throughout the play. I agree, its stupid. If you are down by contact, you are down and the play is over. Because of that crazy rule, you have retarded calls like this.
I still don't understand I guess. At what point has the receiver "maintained possession throughout the play?" Obviously it's not after he has clear possession, is hit, and is driven to the ground. Is it after they get up from the hit? After they get back into the huddle? After the game is over?

According to this rule, someone could make a catch, get hit immediately, go down, place the ball on the ground, stand up, go back into the huddle, and the call could be that it's an incomplete pass.

To me, it looks like he had possession "throughout the play."

bobbything
11-19-2009, 09:55 AM
You need to take at least one, or make some type of "football move", and he did neither. So by the rule it is not a catch, which means it has to be either an incompletion, or an interception. In order for it to be an incompletion the ball has to hit the ground, which it did not, so by process of elimination it's an interception.

I'm not saying I agree with the rule, but it is what it is.
Then this rule sets receivers up to fail. They can't make a "football move" when they're being hit immediately. Furthermore, that should make about 30% of completed passes incomplete.

Someone makes the catch, gets hit, goes down immediately, then the defender could conceivably (after the receiver is down) take the ball out of his hands and it could be called an interception.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:05 AM
I still don't understand I guess. At what point has the receiver "maintained possession throughout the play?" Obviously it's not after he has clear possession, is hit, and is driven to the ground. Is it after they get up from the hit? After they get back into the huddle? After the game is over?

According to this rule, someone could make a catch, get hit immediately, go down, place the ball on the ground, stand up, go back into the huddle, and the call could be that it's an incomplete pass.

To me, it looks like he had possession "throughout the play."
They play isn't over until the whistle blows, you pretty much need to maintain possession until then.

morphius
11-19-2009, 10:09 AM
I'd really want the "football move" removed from the rule book. I don't see why 2 feet down and clear control of the ball isn't good enough everywhere on the field.

Chiefnj2
11-19-2009, 10:11 AM
That's fine as your opinion, but dems not da rules in the NFL.

When is a player down by contact?

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 10:14 AM
I'd really want the "football move" removed from the rule book. I don't see why 2 feet down and clear control of the ball isn't good enough everywhere on the field.Or a knee or elbow, but I agree.

What irritates me most about the rule is the contradiction. If you have control of the ball and you are tackled to the ground, you are then 'down by contact'. Anything after that shouldnt matter.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 10:16 AM
When is a player down by contact?Well, its supposed to be any body part, other than a hand or foot(obviously) is touching the ground while a defender is touching you.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:19 AM
Well, its supposed to be any body part, other than a hand or foot(obviously) is touching the ground while a defender is touching you.
The problem is that you cannot be down by contact if you haven't established possession of the ball.

morphius
11-19-2009, 10:30 AM
The problem is that you cannot be down by contact if you haven't established possession of the ball.
I still would argue that the player shows possession, with my rule anyway, as he had clear control and 2 feet down, and the ball caming out wouldn't have mattered as his butt hit the ground, which I believe is considered down just like a knee.

Chiefnj2
11-19-2009, 10:31 AM
The problem is that you cannot be down by contact if you haven't established possession of the ball.

Didn't the ref say "the Tampa receiver possessed the ball"

Chiefnj2
11-19-2009, 10:33 AM
I have another "rules" question.

If you are in the WildCat formation, do the QB rules apply to the player taking the snap? If KC goes to the wildcat and Charles takes the snap and starts to run do the QB protection rules apply to him?

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:33 AM
I still would argue that the player shows possession, with my rule anyway, as he had clear control and 2 feet down, and the ball caming out wouldn't have mattered as his butt hit the ground, which I believe is considered down just like a knee.
If that's the rule, then the problem is a receiver could have the ball just in his fingertips for a few seconds while being tackled, and then lose it right after his knee hits the ground, and it would by rule be a completion.

morphius
11-19-2009, 10:37 AM
If that's the rule, then the problem is a receiver could have the ball just in his fingertips for a few seconds while being tackled, and then lose it right after his knee hits the ground, and it would by rule be a completion.
Yup, I think a few seconds is long enough to show possession.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:38 AM
Didn't the ref say "the Tampa receiver possessed the ball"
Heh, he did as a matter of fact. If that's the case then there's no way it could be an interception. WTF.

bobbything
11-19-2009, 10:39 AM
Didn't the ref say "the Tampa receiver possessed the ball"
Yes, which makes the possession debate null. If he had possession, he's down by contact. Therefore, no interception. However, I tend to think this ref misspoke and meant to say that the receiver did NOT have possession.

Either way, the whole thing is dumb. They need to rewrite the rule.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:41 AM
Yup, I think a few seconds is long enough to show possession.
Well I don't, but with the way they set up the rules to favor the offense, I'm surprised that isn't the rule.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:42 AM
Yes, which makes the possession debate null. If he had possession, he's down by contact. Therefore, no interception. However, I tend to think this ref misspoke and meant to say that the receiver did NOT have possession.

Either way, the whole thing is dumb. They need to rewrite the rule.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think they can make a single rule that would be able to be applied in a fair manner to every possible scenario.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 10:51 AM
I should add, the play being over as in down by contact. I understand the newer rules concerning catching the ball and maintaining possession throughout the play. Well, there is a contradiction in rules here then. Isnt the play over after a player is down by contact?

He never had possession, so he's not down by contact.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 10:52 AM
I just watched this 10 times and don't see anything that suggests an interception or a fumble. Catch, both feet down, defender tackles the player, players elbow hits the ground, ball pops out afterwards. It's a catch and down by contact. This was a blown call.

Not under NFL rules because to be a completed catch, you must maintain possession through the act of falling to the ground, unless you have already completed a "football move", which he had not because he got blow'd up the moment he got the ball.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 10:52 AM
Yep. In my mind, if you maintain possession to the ground, and contacted by defender, it should be a catch. Just because you lose the ball AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN TACKLED should be irrelevant.

That's in alot of people's minds, but that's not the NFL rule.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 10:55 AM
I'd really want the "football move" removed from the rule book. I don't see why 2 feet down and clear control of the ball isn't good enough everywhere on the field.

There's no move there. Just landing on your feet (or ass or whatever) is not a move.

And like Bugeater, I'm not saying I love these rules -- just explaining what they are.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 10:57 AM
Yes, which makes the possession debate null. If he had possession, he's down by contact. Therefore, no interception. However, I tend to think this ref misspoke and meant to say that the receiver did NOT have possession.

Either way, the whole thing is dumb. They need to rewrite the rule.

I agree, he misspoke. You can't intercept a completed pass. That's nonsensical.

The rule was designed to address a different problem -- when is a pass completed. If it's a tenth of a second between catching, landing and getting blown up, then there could be a bunch of fumbles.

If you watch alot of NFL football, think of all the fumbles you've seen that were ruled incompleted passes. ALMOST ALL of those are because of the "football move" rule. Guy jumps, "catches ball", lands on two feet, gets annihilated immediately by the safety, and the ball goes flying. Under your suggested rules, that's a fumble.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 11:01 AM
That's in alot of people's minds, but that's not the NFL rule.I know its not the rule, I'm saying the rule is fucking stupid.

bobbything
11-19-2009, 11:06 AM
I agree, he misspoke. You can't intercept a completed pass. That's nonsensical.

The rule was designed to address a different problem -- when is a pass completed. If it's a tenth of a second between catching, landing and getting blown up, then there could be a bunch of fumbles.

If you watch alot of NFL football, think of all the fumbles you've seen that were ruled incompleted passes. ALMOST ALL of those are because of the "football move" rule. Guy jumps, "catches ball", lands on two feet, gets annihilated immediately by the safety, and the ball goes flying. Under your suggested rules, that's a fumble.
If the defender drives someone to the ground, immediately after a catch, and the receiver has "maintained possession" all the way to the ground AND a relevant part of his body (elbow, shoulder, etc) is touching the ground WHILE the defender is touching him, the rule should be a catch and down by contact. This is exactly what happened here.

In the scenario(s) you presented above, I'd agree, that the football move needs to be established; otherwise, you'd have fumbles all over the place. However, when a football move cannot be made (such as this case), a different rule needs to be in place.

It's just common sense. You can't make an all-encompassing rule for this. It has to be situational. If you can't make a "football move," then possession is determined by if the ball is moving or not while being tackled. If the ball is not moving throughout the entire process of catching and being tackled, then it should be a catch and down by contact.

morphius
11-19-2009, 11:20 AM
If the defender drives someone to the ground, immediately after a catch, and the receiver has "maintained possession" all the way to the ground AND a relevant part of his body (elbow, shoulder, etc) is touching the ground WHILE the defender is touching him, the rule should be a catch and down by contact. This is exactly what happened here.

In the scenario(s) you presented above, I'd agree, that the football move needs to be established; otherwise, you'd have fumbles all over the place. However, when a football move cannot be made (such as this case), a different rule needs to be in place.

It's just common sense. You can't make an all-encompassing rule for this. It has to be situational. If you can't make a "football move," then possession is determined by if the ball is moving or not while being tackled. If the ball is not moving throughout the entire process of catching and being tackled, then it should be a catch and down by contact.
I don't know why fumbles all over the place would be a bad thing? For me that would be a much more exciting game, but I'm crazy like that.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 11:23 AM
If the defender drives someone to the ground, immediately after a catch, and the receiver has "maintained possession" all the way to the ground AND a relevant part of his body (elbow, shoulder, etc) is touching the ground WHILE the defender is touching him, the rule should be a catch and down by contact. This is exactly what happened here.

In the scenario(s) you presented above, I'd agree, that the football move needs to be established; otherwise, you'd have fumbles all over the place. However, when a football move cannot be made (such as this case), a different rule needs to be in place.

It's just common sense. You can't make an all-encompassing rule for this. It has to be situational. If you can't make a "football move," then possession is determined by if the ball is moving or not while being tackled. If the ball is not moving throughout the entire process of catching and being tackled, then it should be a catch and down by contact.
The problem with situational rules is that there are so many things that can happen, you'd have to have a hundred of them. And even then, sooner or later a situation will happen where none of the hundred rules are applicable. There becomes a point where you just have to let the refs make a judgment call and the losing side is always going to be mad.

ZootedGranny
11-19-2009, 12:25 PM
Here's Pereira breaking down the call: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8144f5c1/Official-Review-Week-10-bonus-coverage

kysirsoze
11-19-2009, 12:35 PM
The football move rule is not new. Where you guys been??

morphius
11-19-2009, 12:46 PM
The football move rule is not new. Where you guys been??
Here bitching about it, where have you been?

Crush
11-19-2009, 12:54 PM
The overall officiating for this season has been really shitty. With the shitty officiating combined with the pussification of the league, the NFL is in danger of jumping the shark. Goodell is ruining the league.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaFace
11-19-2009, 01:00 PM
The overall officiating for this season has been really shitty. With the shitty officiating combined with the pussification of the league, the NFL is in danger of jumping the shark. Goodell is ruining the league.
Posted via Mobile Device

I think a lot of it is that there's been quite a bit of confusion about the rules. Everybody has been trained to think "two feet down plus posession = catch", but that rule's been changed when it comes to the player going to the ground. It seems a bit less logical to people, so there's more confusion.

I haven't personally seen a lot of calls that were blatantly incorrect. But then again, I'm an "Official Review" junkie.

rambleonthruthefog
11-19-2009, 01:50 PM
i remember early in the season i saw a play where a guy caught a ball going down and lost it as he was tackled, costing them a TD. the play was close but was called incomplete because he didn't maintain possession. i said fine, i dont wanna see a single guy lose the ball as he goes down get credited for a catch for the rest of this season.

therefor: did not maintain possession + ball never touched ground = pick6

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 01:59 PM
i remember early in the season i saw a play where a guy caught a ball going down and lost it as he was tackled, costing them a TD. the play was close but was called incomplete because he didn't maintain possession. i said fine, i dont wanna see a single guy lose the ball as he goes down get credited for a catch for the rest of this season.

therefor: did not maintain possession + ball never touched ground = pick6

That's basically right, and from what I've seen of games this year, the refs have been doing a pretty good job of being consistent on that.

bobbything
11-19-2009, 02:30 PM
therefor: did not maintain possession + ball never touched ground = pick6
There are two points of contention here:

(1) At what point, in the video posted, would it have been deemed a catch had the ball not popped up while he was on the ground? 3 seconds after he hit the ground? 10 seconds? Never? Whenever the ref blows his whistle?

(2) The referee said that he did have possession. So, shouldn't it have been an incomplete pass?

ClevelandBronco
11-19-2009, 02:40 PM
jjjayb has it right. The INT ruling is correct because the ball never touched the ground. The play is over when the receiver has possession and is down by contact or out of bounds. Or, of course, the ball has hit the ground.

Here, the ball never hits the ground. The player could have -- even while flat on his back and having a defender wrapped all over him -- completed the catch by securing the ball. He didn't, and instead the ball, without touching the ground, pops up and is caught by a Dolphins player.

Do not confuse down by contact with out of bounds. The moment anything/anyone that is touching the ball is out of bounds, then the play is immediately dead. To be down by contact you must have POSSESSION. As the player didn't complete the act of catching the ball, he never had possession and as a result it could not have been a fumble. Had the ball hit the ground under those circumstances, the play would've been dead immediately.

Perfect explanation of the rule. No more need for argument.

Amnorix
11-19-2009, 03:43 PM
There are two points of contention here:

(1) At what point, in the video posted, would it have been deemed a catch had the ball not popped up while he was on the ground? 3 seconds after he hit the ground? 10 seconds? Never? Whenever the ref blows his whistle?

Basically through the act of landing on the ground. More or less when everyone had come to a stop.

(2) The referee said that he did have possession. So, shouldn't it have been an incomplete pass?

The ref must have misspoke as that statement just does not make sense. If he had possession, it can't be a fumble because he would've been down by contact, and it also can't be an interception because it's a completed pass.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 10:23 PM
Here's Pereira breaking down the call: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8144f5c1/Official-Review-Week-10-bonus-coverageGood explination. Also, reveals how fucked up that reception rule is.

BigMeatballDave
11-19-2009, 10:29 PM
Perfect explanation of the rule. No more need for argument.I'll argue how stupid the rule is.

Chiefs4TheWin
11-19-2009, 10:40 PM
I can see it both ways.

Norman Einstein
11-19-2009, 10:48 PM
This type of crap just gives credibility to the comments I've heard from several fans that the games are all scripted to the extent that the winners of the games are determined before the game starts.

This is now the National F*cked League.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-19-2009, 10:51 PM
This type of crap just gives credibility to the comments I've heard from several fans that the games are all scripted to the extent that the winners of the games are determined before the game starts.

This is now the National F*cked League.
http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/6530/original/space_ghost_facepalm.jpg

highBOLTage
11-20-2009, 11:16 AM
The football move rule is not new. Where you guys been??
The "football move" was eliminated from the rules two years ago. This rule of going to the ground replaced it. This rule is much better as I'd rather have a ref see if a ball comes loose rather than interpret what a "football move" is.

-King-
11-20-2009, 12:00 PM
This type of crap just gives credibility to the comments I've heard from several fans that the games are all scripted to the extent that the winners of the games are determined before the game starts.

This is now the National F*cked League.

Well...okie dokie.

Contrarian
11-20-2009, 12:02 PM
He caught the ball, fell on his back, was touched while he was down - he's down.
Refs f'ed up.

What I didn't like was the refs in the Chiefs Raiders game saying that Heyward Bey caught that ball in bounds in the last minute of the game. There was a ref running down the line looking at it, there was coverage from every angle and they called that guy in when he wasn't. Also the placement on Bradleys stretch to the marker.
These refs are high this year.

-King-
11-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Mike Pereria stressed about the 2nd foot not coming down. But wouldn't the elbow serve that same purpose? Clearly the elbow is down before the ball ever comes out. 1 foot, 1 elbow down, touched by defensive player = Down by contact to me.

Because if not, then defenders will start to be taught to only go after the legs of WRs and that would be a dangerous proposition. If feet are the determining factors, then CBs should start hammering at WRs legs are soon as the ball is caught because as long as the 2nd foot doesn't hit, then the ball is up for grabs regardless of whether the WR is down or not. Soon you'll start seeing WRs on the ground but with one foot held up in the air by a defender while another defender rips the ball away.



Dumbest rule I've seen in a long time. Might be even worse than the tuck rule.