NFL owes us an explanation and an apology

[theanarchist]

The officiating has been questionable at best so far this post season. That's my opinion and I beleive the opinion of a lot of other fans. The first half of the Broncos/Ravens game was a joke. There are two plays that I want to discuss with anyone interested.

 

1) Colts/Ravens game: I don't recall who our reciever was. He caught the ball took a couple of steps was tackled to the ground rolled over while on the ground, with the ball still in his hands, and another defender came in and hit the players hands/ball with his knee and the ball popped out. The play was ultimately ruled an incomplete pass.

2) Falcons/49ers game: wide open reciever for the falcons stumbles as he catches the ball. As hes falling to the ground the ball is bobbling and coming free. There was one angle that clearly showed the football touch the turf under the player. 49ers challenge and the play stands as a complete pass.

 

Ive gotten sick and tired of the replay system. The boneheaded definition of what a completed pass is and how it seems to change from game to game. In my opinion this is the biggest area that the NFL needs to clean up. These games, as we all know, come down to a handful of critical plays, and in my opinion the officials, especially in the playoffs, are deciding too many plays/games. 

 

Ive been a fan of the NFL for a long time but I'm getting sick of the way the passing game has taken over the game, the way the officials control the passing game. Fix it please.

[Nostrils]

I think with the addition or changes to so many rules, they have mixed themselves up.. professional sports (NFL/NBA mainly) is in a very inconsistent phase right now with their officials and it's embarrassing... 

[21isSuperman]

Any videos of those plays?

[Dustin]

The 49ers catch couldn't be overturned due to inconclusive evidence. That ball bobbled but the receiver never took his hand off so it counts.

[IcEWoLF]

Bad calls are made on every sport. Deal with it and move on.

Refs are human and I honestly don't think that was PI.

[Synthetic]

I'm still waiting for an explanation to the 2006 Steelers/Seahawks officiating. This is after all the real refs that you people wanted to come back so badly. Deal with it.

[theanarchist]

The 49ers catch couldn't be overturned due to inconclusive evidence. That ball bobbled but the receiver never took his hand off so it counts.

Bull. I saw an angle of the play and you could see the bottom of the ball hit the ground. Absolute trash a lot of these calls. pathetic

[theanarchist]

Bad calls are made on every sport. Deal with it and move on.

Refs are human and I honestly don't think that was PI.

I understand mistakes get made. Its frustrating to watch a game, especially one with so much on the line, and see the officials become the focus of the game like they did in the first half of the broncos game. Then, you have the completed pass definition that seems to be an enigma.

[Dustin]

Bull. I saw an angle of the play and you could see the bottom of the ball hit the ground. Absolute trash a lot of these calls. pathetic

 

Mike Peraira came on and explained afterwards that the ball can touch the grown as long as the receiver doesn't let go of the ball. His hand was on the ball the whole time.

[theanarchist]

The play in our game that I am referring to I believe was Donny Avery. He catches the ball, clearly, takes a step or two, one defensive player knocks him to the ground. He hits the ground and starts to roll from his front to his back. As he does he's still clutching the ball, as he rolls to his back a Ravens player, I believe Ellerbe, hits Avery with his knee or foot and the ball is knocked out. I guess the only way to safely say a pass is completed is if the reciever holds it and carries it back to the huddle with him.

[CoachLite]

I does seem that the "real" refs are no better than the replacement refs, if as good, and that their prejudices and favored teams become obvious.  Playoff calls are even worse.  Sad. 

[theanarchist]

Mike Peraira came on and explained afterwards that the ball can touch the grown as long as the receiver doesn't let go of the ball. His hand was on the ball the whole time.

OK. As I say. If that is the case in my opinion that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. A player can use the ground to assist in holding on to the ball as long as he has a hand on the ball? That, in my opinion was the case. He was bobbling the ball as he was going to the ground, this cannot be disputed it was moving all over the place. His hand was on the ball as he goes to the ground and the bottom of the ball hits the ground and becomes trapped between the players hand, the ground and his stomach. Yep, completed pass. As I say, the NFL is losing a lot of respect with the nonsense and I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

[Dustin]

OK. As I say. If that is the case in my opinion that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. A player can use the ground to assist in holding on to the ball as long as he has a hand on the ball? That, in my opinion was the case. He was bobbling the ball as he was going to the ground, this cannot be disputed it was moving all over the place. His hand was on the ball as he goes to the ground and the bottom of the ball hits the ground and becomes trapped between the players hand, the ground and his stomach. Yep, completed pass. As I say, the NFL is losing a lot of respect with the nonsense and I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

 

He was bobbling but he never lost possession.

[theanarchist]

He was bobbling but he never lost possession.

I understand he never lost possession. The ball hit the ground as he was bobbling it. Im not the only one who thought that this equals an incomplete pass. Harbaugh was extremely upset and Im sure he had the same opinion as me. If you are going to the ground and bobbling the ball and the ball hits the ground, even though you still maintained possession, its incomplete. Ive seen a million times where a player had a solid grab on the ball and in the process of going to the ground or catching the ball the ball hits the turf its called incomplete. It just seems very stupid to me that a play like this can be a complete pass, yet a play like Avery's where he is actually knocked to the ground with complete control of the ball and in the continuation of contact(after hes on the ground)the ball is knocked free by another players leg and its incomplete. It just make no sense what so ever. 

[theanarchist]

He was bobbling but he never lost possession.

Here's another way to look at it. If the ball does not hit the ground during this play, he doesn't maintain posession and the ball comes free. The ground assisted in him catching the ball. To me its that same as trapping the ball in flight. bobble bobble hit the ground and trap it between your hand the ground and your body and its ok? Please. As I say its stupid. 

[Dustin]

Here's another way to look at it. If the ball does not hit the ground during this play, he doesn't maintain posession and the ball comes free. The ground assisted in him catching the ball. To me its that same as trapping the ball in flight. bobble bobble hit the ground and trap it between your hand the ground and your body and its ok? Please. As I say its stupid. 

 

You're argument is hypocritical. You're basically saying to do away with judgment calls but at the same time saying that the ref should have known that he wouldn't have caught if it wasn't for the ground and should of ruled it incomplete based on a hypothetical. The only way your argument makes sense is for the ref to judge that he wouldn't have caught the ball without the ground, but say above that ref judgement shouldn't be used.

[theanarchist]

You're argument is hypocritical. You're basically saying to do away with judgment calls but at the same time saying that the ref should have known that he wouldn't have caught if it wasn't for the ground and should of ruled it incomplete based on a hypothetical. The only way your argument makes sense is for the ref to judge that he wouldn't have caught the ball without the ground, but say above that ref judgement shouldn't be used.

 

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS 

Article 3  Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward 

pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: 

 (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and 

 (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and 

© maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to 

perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, 

advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). 

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long 

 enough to do so. 

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of 

possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. 

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands 

to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. 

Item 1:  Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or 

without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 

the ground, whether in the field of play or 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. 

 

This is the NFL's rule on completed passes. Do u believe that the play in question the player controlled the ball all the way through? Did he regain control before the ball hit the ground? Theres no way

[Dustin]

 (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and 

advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). 

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of 

possession.

[theanarchist]

 (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and 

advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). 

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of 

possession.

Im just going to have to disagree with you. The ball was moving around between his hand and the stomach as he going to the ground. As his knees hit the ground it jars it even further to the point it starts to completely come out of his hand. It hits the ground and stays in partial contact with his hand and then he rolls onto it

[Dustin]

Im just going to have to disagree with you. The ball was moving around between his hand and the stomach as he going to the ground. As his knees hit the ground it jars it even further to the point it starts to completely come out of his hand. It hits the ground and stays in partial contact with his hand and then he rolls onto it

 

Yeah lets just agree to disagree, we obviously both interpreted it differently.

[Slick_Rick]

I felt the same way on the Avery catch. Contact and down with possession, then a player rolls on top and knocks it loose. Upon further review the play was confirmed, which I don't understand...

[No 1 Manning Fan]

He was bobbling but he never lost possession.

He doesn't have to lose it. The ground cannot assist in the catch.

[Dustin]

He doesn't have to lose it. The ground cannot assist in the catch.

 

He had the ball in his hand the whole time. The ball hit the ground and the refs reviewed and said that it did hit the ground, but it didn't affect the receivers ability to catch it.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

He had the ball in his hand the whole time. The ball hit the ground and the refs reviewed and said that it did hit the ground, but it didn't affect the receivers ability to catch it.

That was their point of view and it is a judgement call. If it were me, I would have called incomplete. The ball moved too much before and after it hit the ground for my taste.

[GoColts8818]

The officiating has been questionable at best so far this post season. That's my opinion and I beleive the opinion of a lot of other fans. The first half of the Broncos/Ravens game was a joke. There are two plays that I want to discuss with anyone interested.

 

1) Colts/Ravens game: I don't recall who our reciever was. He caught the ball took a couple of steps was tackled to the ground rolled over while on the ground, with the ball still in his hands, and another defender came in and hit the players hands/ball with his knee and the ball popped out. The play was ultimately ruled an incomplete pass.

2) Falcons/49ers game: wide open reciever for the falcons stumbles as he catches the ball. As hes falling to the ground the ball is bobbling and coming free. There was one angle that clearly showed the football touch the turf under the player. 49ers challenge and the play stands as a complete pass.

 

Ive gotten sick and tired of the replay system. The boneheaded definition of what a completed pass is and how it seems to change from game to game. In my opinion this is the biggest area that the NFL needs to clean up. These games, as we all know, come down to a handful of critical plays, and in my opinion the officials, especially in the playoffs, are deciding too many plays/games. 

 

Ive been a fan of the NFL for a long time but I'm getting sick of the way the passing game has taken over the game, the way the officials control the passing game. Fix it please.

To the Falcons/49ers game the former head of Officials Mike Pereira said you had to leave that as called on the field and went on to explain how the ball can hit the ground in a catch if it's controlled.  I think the problem is that it's too hard to tell what is a catch and what isn't a catch in the NFL. 

[theanarchist]

To the Falcons/49ers game the former head of Officials Mike Pereira said you had to leave that as called on the field and went on to explain how the ball can hit the ground in a catch if it's controlled.  I think the problem is that it's too hard to tell what is a catch and what isn't a catch in the NFL. 

I completely agree. Please, NFL fix it. Make it common sense. I know that the opinion on the play is split somewhat. I would think that most fans believe that if the ball hits the ground while in the process of going to the ground it shouldnt be and hasnt been in the past, ruled a catch. When you look at that play vs the Avery play I think its just absolutely ridiculous that the Atlanta play IS a catch and the Avery play was not. 

[theanarchist]

To the Falcons/49ers game the former head of Officials Mike Pereira said you had to leave that as called on the field and went on to explain how the ball can hit the ground in a catch if it's controlled.  I think the problem is that it's too hard to tell what is a catch and what isn't a catch in the NFL. 

Here's another little observation on my part. When you need the former head of officiating to be in the studio and be asked to come on the air to explain how these rules are interpreted I think it's time to change something. Just my opinion. The NFL has clouded the rules to the point that a supreme court judge would have a hard time ruling on it. Absurd

[Kyle]

i think the rule is being interpretted wrong here (especially by Dustin)....

 

If when you go to the ground while making a catch and the ball makes contact with the ground, THE BALL CANNOT MOVE!!!!  he did not drop the ball but when it hit the ground he lost control for a sec and then pinned it to his leg with one hand....  when the ball hit the ground and came loose from his hand to where he had to regain control, it should have been ruled incomplete.

 

Mike Pereira wants the officials to look good.  Unless it is an absolute absurd call then he always sides with the officials... multiple times this year the announcers have been in an uproar because of a horrible call and then they ask Mike P and he says the officials got it right, then the announcers just kinda laugh and move on.  Especially this year, Mike P had a lot of PR control to take care of...

 

The NFL needs full-time officials. 

[Matugi]

i think the rule is being interpretted wrong here (especially by Dustin)....

 

If when you go to the ground while making a catch and the ball makes contact with the ground, THE BALL CANNOT MOVE!!!!  he did not drop the ball but when it hit the ground he lost control for a sec and then pinned it to his leg with one hand....  when the ball hit the ground and came loose from his hand to where he had to regain control, it should have been ruled incomplete.

 

Mike Pereira wants the officials to look good.  Unless it is an absolute absurd call then he always sides with the officials... multiple times this year the announcers have been in an uproar because of a horrible call and then they ask Mike P and he says the officials got it right, then the announcers just kinda laugh and move on.  Especially this year, Mike P had a lot of PR control to take care of...

 

The NFL needs full-time officials. 

He's not misinterpreting the rule, you are. Harry Douglas clearly had his hand on the ball and secured it to his body. As long as he does not use the ground to trap the ball, it's a catch. The nose or tail of the football can touch the ground as long as it does not augment the ability of the receiver to complete the catch. In this case, it didn't.

[Kyle]

He's not misinterpreting the rule, you are. Harry Douglas clearly had his hand on the ball and secured it to his body. As long as he does not use the ground to trap the ball, it's a catch. The nose or tail of the football can touch the ground as long as it does not augment the ability of the receiver to complete the catch. In this case, it didn't.

All i am saying is that if you catch the ball and go to the ground, and the ball touches the ground, then you lose possesion for a sec and regain possesion then it is incomplete.  Not sure how to break that down for you anymore.

[Kyle]

He's not misinterpreting the rule, you are. Harry Douglas clearly had his hand on the ball and secured it to his body. As long as he does not use the ground to trap the ball, it's a catch. The nose or tail of the football can touch the ground as long as it does not augment the ability of the receiver to complete the catch. In this case, it didn't.

I am referring to this section of the rule:

 

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or

without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting

the ground, whether in the field of play or 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.

[Kyle]

i felt that when the ball touched the ground it came loose from his control and then he regained control AFTER the ball had touched the ground by pinning the ball to his leg. 

[Kyle]

He's not misinterpreting the rule, you are. Harry Douglas clearly had his hand on the ball and secured it to his body. As long as he does not use the ground to trap the ball, it's a catch. The nose or tail of the football can touch the ground as long as it does not augment the ability of the receiver to complete the catch. In this case, it didn't.

 

yes it did

[Matugi]

He maintained control throughout the process of the catch. He did not use the ground to help trap the ball.

That's all there is to it.

[oldunclemark]

i think the rule is being interpretted wrong here (especially by Dustin)....

 

If when you go to the ground while making a catch and the ball makes contact with the ground, THE BALL CANNOT MOVE!!!!  he did not drop the ball but when it hit the ground he lost control for a sec and then pinned it to his leg with one hand....  when the ball hit the ground and came loose from his hand to where he had to regain control, it should have been ruled incomplete.

 

Mike Pereira wants the officials to look good.  Unless it is an absolute absurd call then he always sides with the officials... multiple times this year the announcers have been in an uproar because of a horrible call and then they ask Mike P and he says the officials got it right, then the announcers just kinda laugh and move on.  Especially this year, Mike P had a lot of PR control to take care of...

 

The NFL needs full-time officials. 

Kyle' last point is his best. This is what the fref strike was about.

Officials are bad because it sisnt what they concentate on all year.

They are not full time...I dont want them to 'moonlight' as NFL officials.

Plus, we need better athletes as offcials....

Refs move like old men because, many times, they ARE old men.

[Kyle]

Kyle' last point is his best. This is what the fref strike was about.

Officials are bad because it sisnt what they concentate on all year.

They are not full time...I dont want them to 'moonlight' as NFL officials.

Plus, we need better athletes as offcials....

Refs move like old men because, many times, they ARE old men.

i wish I could like this more than once.  I 1000% agree

[ColtsBlueFL]

Bull. I saw an angle of the play and you could see the bottom of the ball hit the ground. Absolute trash a lot of these calls. pathetic

Believe it or not, the ball_can_touch the turf briefly and it still be a catch. If the replay ref determines the ground did not actively help the receiver to secure and maintain the ball when it touched briefly, then it doesn't affect a catch call. I've seen where the tip touches, but the body of the ball was in a hand and determined to be secure. If the fat part of the body of the touches, I've almost always seen the replay ref determine the ground did help the receiver secure the ball afterward and it was ruled incomplete.

As far as the first case you present, I remember Mike Pereira (NFL's former VP of officiating) explain a receiver isn't a runner until he has taken two steps after the receiver in the air making a catch lands on his first foot. If he is contacted before that has happened (land on a foot, then taken two full steps) he is a. still in a defenseless position and any defender contact to the head face area will get a personal foul, and that receiver is also under the new rule to complete the catch all the way through to the process. The refs must have disagreed with your position the he landed and then took two full steps before being contacted by the first defender. Otherwise, the receiver would have been considered a 'runner' and no linger a receiver and a. the player would have been awarded the cath and down on contact, and B a helmet to helmet hit would not garner a penalty flag.

I don't recall either play in memeory, but remember ex VP explaining those situations in prior plays, and can only surmise what the refs felt had happened on your two play; whether you agree or not. And I think the complete all the way through the complete process is a farce as enforced, and should be revisited and amended. The defenseless receiver postre will not be altered, the NFL has said as much.