Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

After Pittsburgh getting hosed, I'm done with NFL


Pacergeek

Recommended Posts

On 12/18/2017 at 11:00 AM, GoPats said:

 

Same question here. At what point does the receiver become the runner? Because if a RB does what he did... it's a TD. 

 

 

Assuming the RB has established control of the football. I don't see what's so confusing about the rule, to be honest. If the receiver is going to the ground before establishing control, he has to maintain control of the ball, while still in bounds, without the ball touching the ground. 

 

The only thing that's murky is determining whether the receiver was going to the ground before establishing control. Sometimes it's a judgment, determining when the receiver has established control, whether he is a runner, etc. In the case of James' play, he was clearly going to the ground before establishing control, and when he hit the ground, he lost control of the ball. 

 

I understand that everyone likes to complain about the catch rule, and in this case, James clearly had control of the ball and tried to advance it. But you have to control the ball if you're going to the ground while making the catch. We all know that. All the hyperventilating every time this happens is just stubborn refusal to understand the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 12/18/2017 at 6:26 PM, aaron11 said:

i just dont think bobbling it is losing possession, and yes it depends on how you define "possession" 

 

he still had that ball.  it wasn't on the ground, nobody else had it, and it wasn't loose in the air or anything.  it was between his arms the whole time

 

notd.0.gif

 

He lost control of the ball as it hit the ground. Neither of his hands was under the ball when that happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He reached out and cleanly caught the ball while in the air. He then pulled it in towards his body (not all the way in, but a significant change of direction with possession of the ball) while his knee was hitting the ground. Then made another move stretching his arms out. He kept possession from the air to the ground with his knee, but it jostled when his upper body/arms hit the ground. If that's not a catch under the current rule (and I'm not arguing that it is), then the rule needs to be re-examined.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coltsva said:

He reached out and cleanly caught the ball while in the air. He then pulled it in towards his body (not all the way in, but a significant change of direction with possession of the ball) while his knee was hitting the ground. Then made another move stretching his arms out. He kept possession from the air to the ground with his knee, but it jostled when his upper body/arms hit the ground. If that's not a catch under the current rule (and I'm not arguing that it is), then the rule needs to be re-examined.  

 

Let's say he hadn't stretched the ball out. He just grabbed the ball out of the air, and while going to the ground and tucking it into his body, he loses control of the ball and it hits the ground. No stretch, just a bobbled ball. That's not a catch, it's an incompletion.

 

The only argument for this being a catch is to say that when he stretched the ball out, he had established control of the ball, and in a second act, was trying to advance it. That's so much more subjective, though, and would make the catch rule open to more personal interpretation by the refs.

 

It's actually pretty simple -- if you're going to the ground while establishing control of the ball, you have to maintain control of the ball. If the ball hits the ground or your body goes out of bounds, it's not a completed catch. There's basically no room for subjectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2017 at 10:32 AM, Pacergeek said:

Every off-season, Belichick lets his best players on defense walk away. He replaces them with bums. Not buying that his "system" is so much better than everybody else's system

 

One of those bums tipped a pretty well placed pass up in the air and another one anticipated the opportunity, reacted perfectly to collect, and downed the ball in the end zone.  Thirty other teams give Big Ben another chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2017 at 11:35 AM, PeterBowman said:

I will say the OP does bring up one valid point and I mentioned it in the game thread.

 

New England seems to always be the beneficiaries of these controversial calls. And they're always at critical moments of the game. I can't remember the last time that they've been the victim of them.

 

I think people notice the calls, but there are PLENTY of calls in most games which did not go New England's way.  Isolate on Gronk in any game and tally the blatant holds. 

 

Matt Chatham on the Steelers' first TD, "Well, that was a hose job.  There were definitely ineligible receivers downfield.  Thought they reviewed every scoring play.  That was complete nonsense.  It’s not just a technicality that refs blew this illegal man downfield TD— if RG isn’t running downfield to Harris (MLB) he’s middle help vs pass. If RG stays at LOS where he’s supposed to on pass, Harris affects the pass exactly where it goes to #3—or it’s just not thrown there.  #Patriots #Steelers #PatriotsNation Flag was thrown and picked up."

 

DRR6NEQX0AAdJ37.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wizwor said:

 

One of those bums tipped a pretty well placed pass up in the air and another one anticipated the opportunity, reacted perfectly to collect, and downed the ball in the end zone.  Thirty other teams give Big Ben another chance.

 

.....or Ben just made a really dumb decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Let's say he hadn't stretched the ball out. He just grabbed the ball out of the air, and while going to the ground and tucking it into his body, he loses control of the ball and it hits the ground. No stretch, just a bobbled ball. That's not a catch, it's an incompletion.

 

The only argument for this being a catch is to say that when he stretched the ball out, he had established control of the ball, and in a second act, was trying to advance it. That's so much more subjective, though, and would make the catch rule open to more personal interpretation by the refs.

 

It's actually pretty simple -- if you're going to the ground while establishing control of the ball, you have to maintain control of the ball. If the ball hits the ground or your body goes out of bounds, it's not a completed catch. There's basically no room for subjectivity.

I agree that the rule does take out a lot of the subjectivity. All I'm saying is, if a player is able to make two change of directions with their hands then common sense says they must have had possession of the ball.  

 

On a related note, I think there IS a lot of subjectivity in the replay review. When replay started you needed conclusive evidence to overturn a call. Now it seems like they've moved into the "more likely than not" area for making decisions. I did not see 100% proof that the ball hit the ground when James lunged forward. His right hand and fingers disappeared under the ball. It seems likely that the ball hit the ground, but it is certainly possible that his fingers were under the ball and between the ball and grass. Do I know that for sure? No, but I don't think you can tell indisputably either way. Common sense says the ball probably hit the ground, but since we're taking common sense out of it, you are supposed to have definitive proof to overturn the call on the field. I did not see definitive proof that the ball hit the ground. IMO, regardless of which way it was called on the field, I do not think a replay showed enough evidence either way to reverse the on the field call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Assuming the RB has established control of the football. I don't see what's so confusing about the rule, to be honest. If the receiver is going to the ground before establishing control, he has to maintain control of the ball, while still in bounds, without the ball touching the ground. 

 

The only thing that's murky is determining whether the receiver was going to the ground before establishing control. Sometimes it's a judgment, determining when the receiver has established control, whether he is a runner, etc. In the case of James' play, he was clearly going to the ground before establishing control, and when he hit the ground, he lost control of the ball. 

 

I understand that everyone likes to complain about the catch rule, and in this case, James clearly had control of the ball and tried to advance it. But you have to control the ball if you're going to the ground while making the catch. We all know that. All the hyperventilating every time this happens is just stubborn refusal to understand the rule.

 

Don't get me wrong... I agree with you. And before they made the announcement after review, I told my wife they were going to overturn it. 

 

I just realize I'd be annoyed if this had been the other way around at the end of that game. It wasn't a heads up play by James, but I get that he was just trying to help his team win. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

notd.0.gif

 

He lost control of the ball as it hit the ground. Neither of his hands was under the ball when that happened. 

 

aaron11-

they werent under it, but he had a hand and his wrist still on the sides of the ball

*****************************************************************************************************************

 

Here's the original play that started this whole saga, back in 2000.  Ber Emanuel 'caught ' a pass.  Tony Dungy calls timeout to get next play right.  during the timeout, the refs go to the sideline to view replays of the play. When  play resumes, the ref's deny the catch.  Ever since then, they have been tweaking 'when' a player has established himself as a runner.  This play established the Bert Emanuel rule. 

 

“When a catch is made by a receiver who comes down with both feet on the ground, the ‘football move’ would be: stretching for a first down, diving out-of-bounds or running with the ball. If the ‘football move’ is accomplished, and the receiver is then hit and the ball comes out, it is ruled a catch and fumble, instead of an incomplete forward pass.”

 

His was now a catch, The one above it is not..  This is why fans are so miffed these days.

 

ecvrjnysfrsoddm41z7r.gif

 

 

2 hours ago, coltsva said:

I agree that the rule does take out a lot of the subjectivity. All I'm saying is, if a player is able to make two change of directions with their hands then common sense says they must have had possession of the ball.  

 

 

Except, the NFL dumped the 'football move' part and changed it to time enough to allow the receiver to dodge an oncoming defender. Catch, 2 feet down, possess (do not lose control at any time), enough time.  Refs now look for all 4.  Bang - bang plays causing a fumble are ruled incomplete.  The final 'time' component (not being able avoid contact) figures in.  The NFL has come out publicly and stated reaching out with the football does not constitute the player being established as a runner. It is viewed as an out of control receiver that does not maintain control of the football.

 

"if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”

 

Bert never lost control, so his is a catch, James is not.  Unfortunate but true.

 

But Emanuel wants the competition committee to grant that stretching for a goal line etc. establishes possession/control.  Thus in the end zone, that is a TD.  For getting a first down, it is as long a possession is maintained.  Mike Tomlin might make the competition ciommittee consider these things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wizwor said:

 

Watch the video.

 

Lots of articles this week about how the Steelers mishandled the entire situation. They came out of the review with just one play called, and the coaching staff was telling Roethlisberger to run a play when he was thinking he would spike the ball. Major meltdown on their part. On the INT, no one except Rodgers is running an actual route. Doomed from the snap on that one. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, coltsva said:

I agree that the rule does take out a lot of the subjectivity. All I'm saying is, if a player is able to make two change of directions with their hands then common sense says they must have had possession of the ball.  

 

On a related note, I think there IS a lot of subjectivity in the replay review. When replay started you needed conclusive evidence to overturn a call. Now it seems like they've moved into the "more likely than not" area for making decisions. I did not see 100% proof that the ball hit the ground when James lunged forward. His right hand and fingers disappeared under the ball. It seems likely that the ball hit the ground, but it is certainly possible that his fingers were under the ball and between the ball and grass. Do I know that for sure? No, but I don't think you can tell indisputably either way. Common sense says the ball probably hit the ground, but since we're taking common sense out of it, you are supposed to have definitive proof to overturn the call on the field. I did not see definitive proof that the ball hit the ground. IMO, regardless of which way it was called on the field, I do not think a replay showed enough evidence either way to reverse the on the field call. 

 

So you don't feel that controlling the ball when it hits the ground is important? I do. That's a major point of contention, and changing that part of the rule would lead to just as many controversial calls, including fumbles on plays where the receiver never really established possession of the ball.

 

To the first bolded, it was never conclusive evidence, it was and still is "clear and obvious visual evidence."  To the second bolded, while clear and obvious is a high standard, it is not as high as 100% proof (or definitive proof, or conclusive evidence), nor should 100% proof be required to overturn a call. 

 

To the third bolded, it's clear and obvious that the ball hit the ground. His left hand is on top of the ball, his right hand is on the side of the ball, and under the ball is the ground. He lost control when the ball hit the ground. 

 

To the fourth bolded, we're not taking common sense out of it. I'm really weary of this angle. Possession is established when the receiver has two feet (or the equivalent) down in bounds, with control of the ball. If the receiver is going to the ground while establishing control of the ball, he must maintain control of the ball. He clearly did not. If people don't like the part about establishing and maintaining control of the ball while going to the ground -- surviving the ground, as they say -- that's fine. But that doesn't mean it's lacking common sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Don't get me wrong... I agree with you. And before they made the announcement after review, I told my wife they were going to overturn it. 

 

I just realize I'd be annoyed if this had been the other way around at the end of that game. It wasn't a heads up play by James, but I get that he was just trying to help his team win. 

 

 

Annoyed is one thing. Acting like the rule is broken or the refs fixed the game is another.

 

As for the rule, I prefer less subjectivity. Bottom line, control the ball through the ground. No 'well, it looks like he had control until he reached out, I think that's a catch..." etc. There are a few situations where you can argue that a non-catch should have been a catch, but I don't think this is one of them. You can't advance the ball if you don't have control of it.

 

Eli's comments about this are proof that not everyone is confused about the catch rule. I'm just tired of all the echo chamber nonsense about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Lots of articles this week about how the Steelers mishandled the entire situation. They came out of the review with just one play called, and the coaching staff was telling Roethlisberger to run a play when he was thinking he would spike the ball. Major meltdown on their part. On the INT, no one except Rodgers is running an actual route. Doomed from the snap on that one. 

 

 

That's why Ben should have just thrown it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2017 at 11:35 AM, PeterBowman said:

I will say the OP does bring up one valid point and I mentioned it in the game thread.

 

New England seems to always be the beneficiaries of these controversial calls. And they're always at critical moments of the game. I can't remember the last time that they've been the victim of them.

That's because they have a coach who knows what the rules are and won't keep players who don't understand them.  The number 1 rule of Patriots football is to make the enemy beat you, never beat yourself.

 

Not to mention this isn't the first time James made a mistake that took points off the board.  Remember him not getting the ball in the end zone in last year's AFCCG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, buffalo34 said:

 

Does "clear, indisputable evidence" not apply on touchdowns scored on the Patriots or something?

 

7 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

Oh no!!! There was not conclusive evidence. If that was any other team but the Pats, the refs would not have overturned it.

I’ve got nothing for this one....now the NFL is just trolling fans! Honestly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Lol you can't make this crap up anymore:lol:.. but like you said if you make a mistake against these guys... Charles clay rolled over then said.. nah I don't wanna really catch this

It’s not like last week to me he has full control even if he hasn’t pulled it into his body yet. Some calls could go either way but when you get 50-50 calls week in and out it’s almost like the NFL WANTS the controversy to help their ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dgambill said:

It’s not like last week to me he has full control even if he hasn’t pulled it into his body yet. Some calls could go either way but when you get 50-50 calls week in and out it’s almost like the NFL WANTS the controversy to help their ratings.

 

I believe that this hurts ratings. Folks will question the integrity of the game.

 

What do you think will be the call in a similar play in the Chiefs game? 

 

Update: This one (Chiefs game) appeared more like it should have been overturned but the call stands. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

Let's see if the refs overturn this TD by Kelvin Benjamin.

 

20 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

The Saints/Falcons game right now is possible the 2nd worst officiated game I've ever seen behind a certain 2009 Saints game. The Falcons appear to have quit after the nonsense late hit on the return because the Saints just walked in for a TD.

 

I live in SW FL, so I get Miami - KC and Bucs - Panthers.   At least Tampa is challenging well, leading 19-15 at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

I live in SW FL, so I get Miami - KC and Bucs - Panthers.   At least Tampa is challenging well, leading 19-15 at the moment.

 

Do you expect coaching changes in Miami or Tampa? Some fans were saying that Gase might be out. I don't see it. Now Tampa may make a change. The owners there don't show much patience with coaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

 

Do you expect coaching changes in Miami or Tampa? Some fans were saying that Gase might be out. I don't see it. Now Tampa may make a change. The owners there don't show much patience with coaches.

 

Not sure, I pay little attention to either.  I'll see how things are this week.  I know Jameis Winston just set a franchise record with 5 games over 300 yards passing.  He was tied with 4 others at 4 until today.  Their D let Cam Newton come back and steal the game with little time and 1 T.O. left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

I believe that this hurts ratings. Folks will question the integrity of the game.

 

What do you think will be the call in a similar play in the Chiefs game? 

 

Update: This one (Chiefs game) appeared more like it should have been overturned but the call stands. Lol.

Nobody knows anymore. It just isn’t consistent. I’m just tired of replay altogether....it takes way way too long to decide anything and then it’s like an act of Congress with both sides arguing yes or no.  It’s bad for football no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...