Any word from Blandino...?

[CheezyColt]

Regarding the "incomplete" catch that was clearly a forced fumble by Davis?  I remember watching him take three steps while tucking the ball and turning upfield.  I saw that they came out and said they got the blocked field goal call wrong in the Steelers/Packers (?) game, so I was just wondering if this play got any consideration.  That's two REVIEWED calls that have been screwed up in the past 3 games.  I have a bad feeling about the playoffs this year.  Any team could see their season go poof because of incompetent referees.

[bavanlan]

Regarding the "incomplete" catch that was clearly a forced fumble by Davis?  I remember watching him take three steps while tucking the ball and turning upfield.  I saw that they came out and said they got the blocked field goal call wrong in the Steelers/Packers (?) game, so I was just wondering if this play got any consideration.  That's two REVIEWED calls that have been screwed up in the past 3 games.  I have a bad feeling about the playoffs this year.  Any team could see their season go poof because of incompetent referees.

 

FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

[CheezyColt]

Interesting, I must have missed that.  Maybe I had my homer glasses on but I remember thinking it was as simple a call as could be made.

[Colts_Fan12]

FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

Then I have lost all respect for him too

[esmort]

FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

 

Still think it was a bad call.

 

I have a fear that somewhere down the road between making the rules far more complex than needed and their "wussification" of the sport in the name of "player safety" the game I know and love will eventually be unrecognizable.

[SLILLINGTON10]

Either way it was an outstanding play by Davis, we got the win, and on to the next one.

[Smonroe]

FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

He probably said there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the call, right? Not enough to show the receiver had possession.

It seemed to me, and to the announcers, that there was clear possession. Luckily, it didn't hurt us.

[Cynjin]

He probably said there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the call, right? Not enough to show the receiver had possession.

It seemed to me, and to the announcers, that there was clear possession. Luckily, it didn't hurt us.

 

IIRC, Pereira was saying that because it was a bang-bang play in real time the refs had to stick with the call on the field.  It may have been bang-bang in real time, but IMO it was not during the replay and should have been overturned.  I did not understand his reasoning on this one.

[bavanlan]

Then I have lost all respect for him too

 

 

Still think it was a bad call.

 

I have a fear that somewhere down the road between making the rules far more complex than needed and their "wussification" of the sport in the name of "player safety" the game I know and love will eventually be unrecognizable.

 

 

He probably said there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the call, right? Not enough to show the receiver had possession.

It seemed to me, and to the announcers, that there was clear possession. Luckily, it didn't hurt us.

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841349469270016

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841835773628416

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841902630834176

[Smonroe]

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841349469270016

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841835773628416

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841902630834176

Love the comments.

[jskinnz]

The fumbled punt in the first Houston game that was overturned and the call at the goal line against the Bengals were a failure to me of the replay system. The call last week against the Chiefs, while I think it was wrong, I can understand how they stayed with the call on the field.

[ricker182]

The fumbled punt in the first Houston game that was overturned and the call at the goal line against the Bengals were a failure to me of the replay system. The call last week against the Chiefs, while I think it was wrong, I can understand how they stayed with the call on the field.

Why have slo-mo replay if bang bang makes it stay the call first ruled on the field?

To me it wasn't even bang bang.

I know they took "football move" out of the rulebook, but where does possession even start anymore? It's getting ridiculous.

[Superman]

Why have slo-mo replay if bang bang makes it stay the call first ruled on the field?

To me it wasn't even bang bang.

I know they took "football move" out of the rulebook, but where does possession even start anymore? It's getting ridiculous.

 

Where do YOU think possession should start?

[Cynjin]

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841349469270016

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841835773628416

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841902630834176

 

Interesting comments Mike, apparently running with the ball after a catch is not an act common to the game.

[ricker182]

Where do YOU think possession should start?

It doesn't matter what I think, but since you asked, it should be common sense possession. If he catches the ball and is not in the process of going to the ground the player should be given a 2 second window, a football move, or 2 steps.

[Superman]

It doesn't matter what I think, but since you asked, it should be common sense possession. If he catches the ball and is not in the process of going to the ground the player should be given a 2 second window, a football move, or 2 steps.

 

The bolded is the very definition of subjectivity, as your idea of "common sense" will invariably differ from the person next to you. That's something the NFL is trying to reduce in the way games are called. It's why verbiage like "football move" was taken out of the rule book. 

 

The thing about two steps -- which would apply in this case -- is that you still have to determine definitively when the receiver established control of the football. I think he had control and took two steps, and it should have been ruled a catch and a fumble. But it wasn't ruled that way on the field, and while I think the replay showed that he established control and took two steps, I can understand the ref not seeing the replay as conclusive. To me, it's one of those plays that half the room will see one way, and the other half will see another way. 

 

Two seconds can be an eternity; applying that standard would make the play in question an incomplete pass.

 

Anyways, my point is just that one person's idea of "possession" differs from another's, and that's while the rule book is written the way it is. I think they should probably redefine "conclusive evidence," because there are situations where the right call is obvious under review, but that benchmark isn't necessarily reached. This is a perfect example.

[Cynjin]

The bolded is the very definition of subjectivity, as your idea of "common sense" will invariably differ from the person next to you. That's something the NFL is trying to reduce in the way games are called. It's why verbiage like "football move" was taken out of the rule book. 

 

The thing about two steps -- which would apply in this case -- is that you still have to determine definitively when the receiver established control of the football. I think he had control and took two steps, and it should have been ruled a catch and a fumble. But it wasn't ruled that way on the field, and while I think the replay showed that he established control and took two steps, I can understand the ref not seeing the replay as conclusive. To me, it's one of those plays that half the room will see one way, and the other half will see another way. 

 

Two seconds can be an eternity; applying that standard would make the play in question an incomplete pass.

 

Anyways, my point is just that one person's idea of "possession" differs from another's, and that's while the rule book is written the way it is. I think they should probably redefine "conclusive evidence," because there are situations where the right call is obvious under review, but that benchmark isn't necessarily reached. This is a perfect example.

 

I disagree with this, I believe that it would be more like 98% would see it one way and 2% would see it the other.

[jskinnz]

I disagree with this, I believe that it would be more like 98% would see it one way and 2% would see it the other.

Methinks that if this had been a forced fumble by the Chiefs, you would be singing a much different tune.

[jskinnz]

It doesn't matter what I think, but since you asked, it should be common sense possession. If he catches the ball and is not in the process of going to the ground the player should be given a 2 second window, a football move, or 2 steps.

A 2 second window? Holy smokes that is forever and a day in the NFL. And not close to a standard the NFL would adopt.

[Superman]

I disagree with this, I believe that it would be more like 98% would see it one way and 2% would see it the other.

 

I think it would probably be something like 80/20 here on the Colts board. Neutral poll, far closer to even.

[DarkHorseColts]

I miss the old days.

 

Does the receiver have control of the ball?

Did they get two feet (or equivalent) down in bounds?

 

If both of these are simultaneously true, then it's a catch. None of this 'completing the catch' or 'football move' stuff. Simpler times for a simple mind like mine, I guess.

[ricker182]

A 2 second window? Holy smokes that is forever and a day in the NFL. And not close to a standard the NFL would adopt.

These are or's not and's. A two second window would only apply if the others were not established.

[ricker182]

I think it would probably be something like 80/20 here on the Colts board. Neutral poll, far closer to even.

I went around the Chiefs' boards and I'd say a huge majority of those who commented on it thought that was a catch and fumble. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. My brother in law who hates the Colts agreed it was definitely a catch and fumble.

I'm not complaining about the "close plays" that could be called either way. There is just no way that was an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Unfortunately this has happened to the Colts at least 4 times this season.

[FastStarts]

If I remember the play correctly, the player was moving the ball from his hands to his chest for a firmer grip of the ball. That is what I call possession of the football and therefore it should have been a fumble.

[BOTT]

I went around the Chiefs' boards and I'd say a huge majority of those who commented on it thought that was a catch and fumble. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. My brother in law who hates the Colts agreed it was definitely a catch and fumble.

I'm not complaining about the "close plays" that could be called either way. There is just no way that was an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Unfortunately this has happened to the Colts at least 4 times this season.

I thought it was a fumble, but on that kind of bang bang play the pass catcher often gets the benefit of the doubt it seems. The refs are consistently inconsistent at least....

[GoColts8818]

IIRC, Pereira was saying that because it was a bang-bang play in real time the refs had to stick with the call on the field.  It may have been bang-bang in real time, but IMO it was not during the replay and should have been overturned.  I did not understand his reasoning on this one.

That's why I liked JMV's response to him when he said "Then don't have replay".  That's the exact point of replay is to slow things down and catch things you might have missed when watching it live because it was bang bang.

 

I like Pereira a lot and really listen to him when he says the officials got something wrong because he will do things like this here to take the officials side from time-to-time.  So if he doesn't take their side to me that means they really did mess up. 

 

In this case I think he's just sticking up for official brother and trying to give him an out.