Sometimes...

[ricka56]

Sometimes it sucks to be a sports official. Case in point, Gene Steratore had to, by rule, deny what would have been considered one of the greatest (most athletic) plays in NFL playoff history.

 

For those who didn't see the play

 

 

[Richvee]

Yep..The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause a caught ball to be ruled an incomplete pass...........And you thought FED had some messed up rules. 

[Replacematt]

Yep..The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause a caught ball to be ruled an incomplete pass...........And you thought FED had some messed up rules. 

 

Myth, Ranks up there with 1+1 and hands are part of the bat.

[Thunderheads]

that's awful

[scrounge]

As soon as I saw the first replay, I thought it was incomplete and would be reversed. It's not really all that difficult - you haven't caught it till you hold on to it through contact with the ground. It clearly bounced off the ground and came loose as he fell during the initial part of the catch.

 

Just like the previous week, no excuses. Feel free to get that 1st down next time. Or convert the 4th down without a low percentage toss up ball - they hadn't stopped Murray all day, but that's the time to go for a bomb? Or - you know, since there were 4 mins left - stop them and get the ball back. You know - all the things you guys said to Detroit fans.

[Richvee]

 

Yep..The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause a caught ball to be ruled an incomplete pass...........And you thought FED had some messed up rules. 

 

Myth, Ranks up there with 1+1 and hands are part of the bat.

 

What's the myth? If an runner's elbow or knee hits the ground and the ball pops out when it hits the ground = no fumble. Evidently if a reciever's elbow hits the ground after a making a catch and falling down it isn't a catch. Looks pretty inconsistent to me. 

[scrounge]

 

 

Yep..The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause a caught ball to be ruled an incomplete pass...........And you thought FED had some messed up rules. 

 

Myth, Ranks up there with 1+1 and hands are part of the bat.

 

What's the myth? If an runner's elbow or knee hits the ground and the ball pops out when it hits the ground = no fumble. Evidently if a reciever's elbow hits the ground after a making a catch and falling down it isn't a catch. Looks pretty inconsistent to me. 

 

 

That's only if down by contact - if you're contacted with possession already and hit the ground, you're down. So the ground can't cause a fumble to a player in possession of the ball who's already down.

 

If you just fall down on your own with no contact, the ground can most certainly cause a fumble.

 

And in this case, we're not talking about losing the ball when in possession - it's the definition of possession and a catch itself. Until you complete the catch - defined explicitly as maintaining control through contact with the ground if you're falling during the catch - then you haven't caught it and therefore don't possess it. So you can't fumble till you possess it and you don't possess it till you've caught it. And you haven't caught it if you don't control it through the catch.

[Thunderheads]

Kind of reminds me of the "on the transfer" change, and reversal from last season in the MLB.

[Jimurray]

Yep..The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause a caught ball to be ruled an incomplete pass...........And you thought FED had some messed up rules.

 

Myth, Ranks up there with 1+1 and hands are part of the bat.

What's the myth? If an runner's elbow or knee hits the ground and the ball pops out when it hits the ground = no fumble. Evidently if a reciever's elbow hits the ground after a making a catch and falling down it isn't a catch. Looks pretty inconsistent to me.

 

That's only if down by contact - if you're contacted with possession already and hit the ground, you're down. So the ground can't cause a fumble to a player in possession of the ball who's already down.

 

If you just fall down on your own with no contact, the ground can most certainly cause a fumble.

 

And in this case, we're not talking about losing the ball when in possession - it's the definition of possession and a catch itself. Until you complete the catch - defined explicitly as maintaining control through contact with the ground if you're falling during the catch - then you haven't caught it and therefore don't possess it. So you can't fumble till you possess it and you don't possess it till you've caught it. And you haven't caught it if you don't control it through the catch.

Wasn't the arm extension toward the goal line a "football" move? Or would more extension have helped.

[scrounge]

 

 

 

 

Yep..The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause a caught ball to be ruled an incomplete pass...........And you thought FED had some messed up rules.

 

Myth, Ranks up there with 1+1 and hands are part of the bat. What's the myth? If an runner's elbow or knee hits the ground and the ball pops out when it hits the ground = no fumble. Evidently if a reciever's elbow hits the ground after a making a catch and falling down it isn't a catch. Looks pretty inconsistent to me.  

That's only if down by contact - if you're contacted with possession already and hit the ground, you're down. So the ground can't cause a fumble to a player in possession of the ball who's already down.

 

If you just fall down on your own with no contact, the ground can most certainly cause a fumble.

 

And in this case, we're not talking about losing the ball when in possession - it's the definition of possession and a catch itself. Until you complete the catch - defined explicitly as maintaining control through contact with the ground if you're falling during the catch - then you haven't caught it and therefore don't possess it. So you can't fumble till you possess it and you don't possess it till you've caught it. And you haven't caught it if you don't control it through the catch.

Wasn't the arm extension toward the goal line a "football" move? Or would more extension have helped.

 

 

It wasn't much, so I don't think it was....but in any case, it wasn't a football move *AFTER* making the catch but at best an extension during the initial fall. So the catch still hadn't been made. If there had been even a momentary pause between fall and extension, then it could be more easily seen as a separate move. Kind of sucks, but it was almost 'too' athletic of a move, extending (a little bit) while during the initial fall.

[ricka56]

 

Wasn't the arm extension toward the goal line a "football" move? Or would more extension have helped.

 

Dean Blandino (head of NFL officiating...guy being interviewed) bemoans, if this isn't an incomplete pass, "where do we draw the line?". He wants a black/white distinction, but the "football move" exception is purely official's judgement. I am 100% sure that Dez was trying to score on that play (make a "football move"), but he didn't get the benefit of the doubt.

 

The call effectively ended what was by far the best of the playoff games. If the catch was allowed, there would have been a 2-point conversion attempt, followed by a Green Bay final drive to tie/win the game. Packers fans must have felt like they dodged a bullet, everyone else kind of felt cheated.

[Replacematt]

A football move has to occur after a player has become upright. Any move before that is irrelevant.

[Kevin_K]

Doesn't seem all that different from a wall, the ground, or some other blunt force jarring loose a "catch" in baseball.

 

Can the ground cause a catch to be a no catch in baseball? Seems to be the same idea here...

 

Just sayin......

[ricka56]

A football move has to occur after a player has become upright. Any move before that is irrelevant.

"keeps his balance" is how the NFL case book puts it:

 

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS

First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground.

Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.

 

Best view

 

The contact that knocked Dez down came after he had control of the ball and two feet down on the ground. Whether you think he had his balance before this contact is a judgment call.

[Richvee]

Like I said, I'm certainly no football rules guy, but to the untrained eye, I sure as hell saw a guy go up, make an incredible catch and then have the where-with-all to extend the arm with the ball in it to try to get the ball over the goal line. If "by rule" what he did isn't a catch, and was "clear as day" as some talking heads I heard today say (Chris Carter leading the way on Mike and Mike this morning), then I believe the rule may need a little rewording.

 

This in a nutshell is probably the mail reason I'm not as much of a football fan as I used to be. Every play every throw, scrutinized frame by frame  and then applying lengthy rules to each situation has turned me off from the game. I watch, but nowhere as into it as I once was. 

[noumpere]

This in a nutshell is probably the mail reason I'm not as much of a football fan as I used to be. Every play every throw, scrutinized frame by frame  and then applying lengthy rules to each situation has turned me off from the game. I watch, but nowhere as into it as I once was. 

 

Sounds just like this forum.

[walkintall]

Close. It would have been 1st and goal from the half-yard line or closer.

 

Definitely need to take a look at the wording of the rule. Good call, stupid rule is how I see it.

[Richvee]

 

This in a nutshell is probably the mail reason I'm not as much of a football fan as I used to be. Every play every throw, scrutinized frame by frame  and then applying lengthy rules to each situation has turned me off from the game. I watch, but nowhere as into it as I once was. 

 

Sounds just like this forum.

 

Sometimes this is all too true, and I'm as guilty as the next guy.