Did CJ Really Score?

[Smonroe]

I know all scoring plays are supposedly reviewed, but I wasn't sure about that one. It may have been worth a challenge. Half the time the replays go the polar opposite of what we think we see.

It was 4th down, huge play.

[PrincetonTiger]

I didn't think so

[Smonroe]

I didn't think so

You didn't think he held the ball or that it wasn't worth the challenge?

[PrincetonTiger]

You didn't think he held the ball or that it wasn't worth the challenge?

IMHO he didn't maintain posse coin long enough

[sfergson727]

I think the refs dropped the ball, had they taken time to review it, clearly it would have been reversed.

[21isSuperman]

The commentators made a point of it too.  But all scoring plays are reviewed, so I guess the refs saw what they needed to

[ColtsLegacy]

You didn't think he held the ball or that it wasn't worth the challenge?

 

You can't challenge a scoring play. The booth absolutely should have review it, however. It was awfully close to complete ignore as it seemed they did, until the announcers pointed it out after the fact.

[Smonroe]

You can't challenge a scoring play. The booth absolutely should have review it, however. It was awfully close to complete ignore as it seemed they did, until the announcers pointed it out after the fact.

I forgot about that. It used to be that if you challenged a scoring play you'd be penalized.

I wonder if we would have called a TO and given them more time to review it?

[ponyboy]

I forgot about that. It used to be that if you challenged a scoring play you'd be penalized.

I wonder if we would have called a TO and given them more time to review it?

 

There should be no need for a TO.  The booth reviews every scoring play and doesn't allow the extra point until it's been confirmed.  So presumably the booth reviewed and didn't see enough evidence to overturn.

[dw49]

I know all scoring plays are supposedly reviewed, but I wasn't sure about that one. It may have been worth a challenge. Half the time the replays go the polar opposite of what we think we see.

It was 4th down, huge play.

 

 

 

 

I might be that since the receiver didn't go to the ground making the catch , he only has to have possession until both feet hit the ground. Other words , this catch doesn't have the same "requirements" as some of the others we see when the player hits the ground making the reception. Pretty close to that happening ....

[Smonroe]

I might be that since the receiver didn't go to the ground making the catch , he only has to have possession until both feet hit the ground. Other words , this catch doesn't have the same "requirements" as some of the others we see when the player hits the ground making the reception. Pretty close to that happening ....

But if the ball is knocked out of his hands, then he has to demonstrate that possession for either a period of time, or by making a football move.

I'll go back and watch it but it looked like he never really had possession long enough to make a move.

I'm just glad it didn't matter.

[Poster X]

I didn't think he did... and mentioned so in the gameday thread. The ball was knocked away before he was able to make a move with it if memory serves me. The replay showed it. It was quick, and didn't seem like the booth took too long of a look if they did at all. It was just excepted from the field.

[a06cc]

At the end of the day who cares? We won!!

[dw49]

But if the ball is knocked out of his hands, then he has to demonstrate that possession for either a period of time, or by making a football move.

I'll go back and watch it but it looked like he never really had possession long enough to make a move.

I'm just glad it didn't matter.

 

 

I think he just has to demonstrate possession with 2 feet down in that situation and its a TD. But I'm for sure not sure about that.

[Smonroe]

I think he just has to demonstrate possession with 2 feet down in that situation and its a TD. But I'm for sure not sure about that.

I don't know either, I agree with Gandalf in the post above.

So, the question is how long do you have to hold the ball on a catch in the end zone before someone knocks it out of your hands?

[GoColts8818]

I don't know how they didn't even take a look at that.  I've seen guys hold the ball longer than that in the endzone and have touchdowns waved off.  I will say this either that's not a touchdown of the Titans TE didn't have an incomplete pass earlier in the game.  Once again poor officiating by Walt Coleman's crew no matter how you cut it. 

[dw49]

I didn't think he did... and mentioned so in the gameday thread. The ball was knocked away before he was able to make a move with it if memory serves me. The replay showed it. It was quick, and didn't seem like the booth took too long of a look if they did at all. It was just excepted from the field.

But why would the receiver need to make a football move in the end zone ? Play is over once the 2nd foot hits the ground.. I think. If in the field of play , you are no doubt correct. But i think because he caught the ball in the endzone and wasn't going to the ground to make the catch , the play is over.

[Legend of Luck]

It was interesting. I wish they have a rules official go over that play on tv some time this week. I was seeing it live so I have no idea what was said on the radio or the broadcast.

[dudeski]

Yes