Remember that Lance Moore play in the Super Bowl?

[hockey878]

Why was that considered a catch if Decker's wasn't?

 

Im about 99% sure that we got away with one there. The ref blew that one. I always thought the rule states something like if possession is established outside the endzone and then as soon as the goal line is crossed the play is done and you don't need to maintain possession to the ground. Decker clearly established possession and crossed the goalline, so why wasn't it a TD?

 

Someone please tell me if Im an *, but im pretty darn sure im right about this.

[Nobody]

He didn't finish the catch, it was the correct call by the rules.

[Superman]

Why was that considered a catch if Decker's wasn't?

 

Im about 99% sure that we got away with one there. The ref blew that one. I always thought the rule states something like if possession is established outside the endzone and then as soon as the goal line is crossed the play is done and you don't need to maintain possession to the ground. Decker clearly established possession and crossed the goalline, so why wasn't it a TD?

 

Someone please tell me if Im an *, but im pretty darn sure im right about this.

 

I don't remember the Lance Moore play. I remember not agreeing with the call, but I don't really remember the play.

 

In the case of Decker's play, he did not establish possession of the ball, because he was going to the ground as a part of making the catch. In that case, he has to control the ball all the way through the play. If he loses control as he goes to the ground, or as he rolls over, it's not a catch. Decker didn't maintain control of the ball through the play, so it's not a catch. You have to pretend the pylon isn't a part of the play, that he's not trying to get into the endzone. If he is going to the ground to make a catch in the middle of the field, he has to maintain control of the ball as he goes to the ground, through the play. 

 

If he had already established control before crossing the plane, it would be a touchdown, regardless of the ball coming out as he went to the ground. But according to the rules, he hadn't established control when he reached for the pylon, because he was going to the ground as a part of the catch.

 

I'm not arguing the merit of the rule; I think that can be argued effectively either way. Just saying what the rule is, and why it's called that way.

[bestQBever]

yeah. as I recall, it was the 2 point conversion where moore stuck the ball into the endzone, pulled it back and then lost the ball, all while falling to the ground immediately after making the catch. But honestly, the decker call was the right call. The one in the super bowl was a bogus call as it should have been incomplete.

[Fx Stryker]

I don't get the through the ground rule. Because honestly Decker caught the ball, made a football move, and crossed the plain. If he has possession and made a football move, which he did, once he breaks the plain it's a TD. Breaking the plane ends the play. There are times a runner dives over the pile sticks the ball over the goal line, and pulls it back out. And it's a TD because after he broke the plane the play is over.

Anywhere else on the field that is ruled a fumble.

[Synthetic]

His feet were in the endzone. Moore got it. You cannot even compare them because Decker was outside the endzone when he caught it. Go back and watch the tape, Moore's feet were in the endzone when he caught it. The call was right.

[Superman]

I don't get the through the ground rule. Because honestly Decker caught the ball, made a football move, and crossed the plain. If he has possession and made a football move, which he did, once he breaks the plain it's a TD. Breaking the plane ends the play. There are times a runner dives over the pile sticks the ball over the goal line, and pulls it back out. And it's a TD because after he broke the plane the play is over.

Anywhere else on the field that is ruled a fumble.

 

That's not true. You have to get this old "football move" thinking out of your head. It's not in the rulebook anymore. http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

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.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the

process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout

the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in

the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to

become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same

action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the

ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided

that the player continues to maintain control.

 

Commentators keep talking about a football move, but that's not the rule anymore. 

 

The difference between a runner breaking the plane with the ball and what Decker did is that Decker never established control of the ball, according to the rules.

[MAC]

Last night I thought for some reason that the whole event took place at shoestring level and he never really had possession, but looking at the replay that's not the case. He caught the ball, held it firmly, and extended it into the end zone. The ball didn't come lose until he rolled over on his back out of bounds. I see what Superman is quoting, but when you factor in the old "as soon as the ball crosses the plane of the goal it's a score" business, I really don't get the reasoning for the call at all. I think that should have been ruled a touchdown.

 

By the way, if that call had happened to go the other way, the Broncos would have had 4 more points. That alone would have made it a five point lead at the two minute mark instead of nine (actually a four point lead if - with the extra four points - they hadn't gone for two). Suddenly you are talking about Peyton going for it on fourth down at the end instead of starting the comical fire drill. You never know, particularly when you consider all the time that came off the clock because of Colts penalties in the final two minutes - which was utterly bizarre in it's own right when you think about it. Maybe if only down one score Fox takes the ball the first time instead of having them re-kick.

 

[Superman]

Last night I thought for some reason that the whole event took place at shoestring level and he never really had possession, but looking at the replay that's not the case. He caught the ball, held it firmly, and extended it into the end zone. The ball didn't come lose until he rolled over on his back out of bounds. I see what Superman is quoting, but when you factor in the old "as soon as the ball crosses the plane of the goal it's a score" business, I really don't get the reasoning for the call at all. I think that should have been ruled a touchdown.

 

It's not a score if the player hasn't established control of the football. Decker hadn't established control.

 

You have to consider this play as if it happened anywhere else on the field. If Decker had tried to stretch out for a first down at midfield, he wouldn't have been awarded a catch simply because he held the ball out past the marker. Holding the ball firmly isn't enough if he's going to the ground as a part of the catch. He has to maintain control of the ball for the entire catch if he goes to the ground as a part of the catch.

 

He clearly sacrificed his balance in an effort to catch the ball, and was going to the ground. In a separate motion, he extended the ball over the pylon. But he was still going to the ground as a part of the catch, and the rule requires him to maintain control of the football through that process. He didn't, so it wasn't a catch.

[House]

Nope. Got to complete the catch. Simple as that. He knows it.

[hockey878]

Im tellling you guys the rule is different for plays like this. there was a play like this earlier this year, but i can't remember which game. he clearly has possession and then crosses the plane. at that point the play is done and its a TD. its different from the standard rule.

 

anyways. past is past and the colts won. 

[OffensivelyPC]

 

That's not true. You have to get this old "football move" thinking out of your head. It's not in the rulebook anymore. http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

 

Commentators keep talking about a football move, but that's not the rule anymore. 

 

The difference between a runner breaking the plane with the ball and what Decker did is that Decker never established control of the ball, according to the rules.

Thank you.  Everytime the commentators kept talking about a football move, I thought the same thing.  Who cares if you make a football move when you dont' have possession/control? 

[COLT in J-ville]

His feet were in the endzone. Moore got it. You cannot even compare them because Decker was outside the endzone when he caught it. Go back and watch the tape, Moore's feet were in the endzone when he caught it. The call was right.

 

Besides getting 2 feet down in the field of play, the feet don't matter whatsoever. The ball is the only thing that counts in the end zone.

[TKnight24]

He didn't complete the catch. I don't even remember him bringing it into his body. I think he just grabbed and reached for the pylon. Then lost the ball

Only time you can lose the ball like that is when you're running to the endzone and do that dive like players do.

Either way, we won the game so it is what it is

[Fx Stryker]

That's not true. You have to get this old "football move" thinking out of your head. It's not in the rulebook anymore. http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

Commentators keep talking about a football move, but that's not the rule anymore.

The difference between a runner breaking the plane with the ball and what Decker did is that Decker never established control of the ball, according to the rules.

I guess it's all up for personal judgment.

I seen it as Decker wasn't falling to the ground during the catch. He made the catch, and reached for the endzone. Turning caused him to lose balance, and fall to the ground. He wasn't going to the ground like a diving catch, or the Calvin Johnson play. His losing the ball is one in the same with a running back diving and losing the ball because of impact. Which is a TD.

If Decker didn't reach he doesn't fall. So since he reached it makes it a catch going to the ground? They are two separate actions. So I fail to see why it's ruled going to the ground. I get it's a bang bang play, but sometimes I feel refs are not smart enough to distinguish the different between things.

[Superman]

I guess it's all up for personal judgment.

I seen it as Decker wasn't falling to the ground during the catch. He made the catch, and reached for the endzone. Turning caused him to lose balance, and fall to the ground. He wasn't going to the ground like a diving catch, or the Calvin Johnson play. His losing the ball is one in the same with a running back diving and losing the ball because of impact. Which is a TD.

If Decker didn't reach he doesn't fall. So since he reached it makes it a catch going to the ground? They are two separate actions. So I fail to see why it's ruled going to the ground. I get it's a bang bang play, but sometimes I feel refs are not smart enough to distinguish the different between things.

 

He had to reach to catch the ball. Like I said, pretend the endzone isn't there. Just to catch the ball, he would have had to go to the ground. That wasn't a separate motion.