the Ebron call

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, bluebombers87 said:

Guys guys guys, this isn’t rocket science. 

 

Ok ok in all seriousness if you need a flow chart to determine if a guy catches a football, you’ve overthought this.

That’s the thing in the NFL you almost do...

[Smoke317]

29 minutes ago, cjrichard said:

What frustrated me was the non calls for offensive holding. On a Chargers TD the running back TACKLED the blitzing LB. 

Some things never change

 

Joseph

And it was clear as day...  That was on the Allen touchdown. He 

[lollygagger8]

Those refs did everything they could to ensure a Chargers victory. 

 

The Ebron TD (which was a catch) 

The bogus Autry hitting the long snapper? (gimme a break) 

Multiple holds never called 

The whack Houston offsides call 

 

Surprised they didn't call Hooker's INT illegal for being to amazing. 

[Mitch Connors]

24 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Those refs did everything they could to ensure a Chargers victory. 

 

The Ebron TD (which was a catch) 

The bogus Autry hitting the long snapper? (gimme a break) 

Multiple holds never called 

The whack Houston offsides call 

 

Surprised they didn't call Hooker's INT illegal for being to amazing. 

 

I feel the same way and Im certain its my Colts bias because I dont think the refs are really dong it on purpose but....

 

Just once cant it go the other way? This week Id love for Mariotta to throw a "TD pass" where the WR looks to tap both feet in the corner of the endzone but the officials call it an incomplete pass. Im sitting at home saying, "wth was that call? That's a catch and a TD" but the refs come back and say incomplete pass and they send in the FG unit. Just. Once.

[Rebel]

The Colts were robbed.

[stitches]

He needs to be more secure with his hands. This would have been called whatever they saw it as live. There was not enough evidence on tape to either overturn or confirm. 

 

With that said... it felt like every call was going against us... every spot was just a little in favor of the Chargers, etc... 

 

Oh well... nothing we can do about it now... we should have scored our field goals. 

[Imgrandojji]

11 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The NFL changed the rule before the season. 

They changed the rule slightly, to give the refs a bit more leeway.  But the rule in question didn't change significantly.  If you leave your feet in the process of the catch, you still have to control the ball all the way through the completion of the catch.  Ebron didn't.  It's just that simple.  It was too clear to be controversial. 

 

The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass.  This was an incomplete pass.  Ebron lost the ball at the point of contact with the ground and under the NFL rules as they exist right now, that means he never had possession of the football.  It's really just that clear.

[Valpo2004]

11 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

I didn't have nearly as much trouble with that call as I did with all the non calls for holding.   Good God.   I thought some of the chargers o lineman were sledding

 

On one screen play I saw a Chargers OL holding one of our defender's arms after he was already past him.  

[Imgrandojji]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

His foot and elbow hit before the ball came loose, look at the play again.

Doesn't actually matter.  If contact with the ground dislodges the ball, and it did, then it's an incomplete pass, the two-touch rule doesn't even come into it because the two-touch rule assumes possession, and Ebron didn't satisfy the requirements for possession in the first place.

[Imgrandojji]

11 hours ago, Dark_Indy said:

The thing that bugs me the most, is the lack of consistency across the rules depending on "where" you are on the field.

IT has literally nothing to do with where you are.  It has everything to do with exactly one thing:

 

Did you leave your feet in the process of attempting the catch.

 

That's it,  Esta todo.  C'est tout.  Ebron left his feet.  Megatron left his feet.  James left his feet.  Bryant left his feet.  None of them maintained control of the football through the full process of going to the ground after putting their hands on the football.

 

by rule, none of them actually possessed the football as a result of 1) leaving their feet in the process of the catch attempt and 2) not having control of the football at the point of impact with the ground.

 

The only reason fans are confused is because the media doesn't fully understand the NFL possession rules.  This stuff is clear cut and obvious if you read the rulebook.  I don't think most football media have ever read it all the way through though, and their ignorance helps confuse the fanbase.

[colts8718]

Adam makes the 2 FG and extra point we would not even be talking about this .My judgement was no catch Ebron was notorious for dropping balls with the lions. Some things never change

[bluebombers87]

16 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

IT has literally nothing to do with where you are.  It has everything to do with exactly one thing:

 

Did you leave your feet in the process of attempting the catch.

 

That's it,  Esta todo.  C'est tout.  Ebron left his feet.  Megatron left his feet.  James left his feet.  Bryant left his feet.  None of them maintained control of the football through the full process of going to the ground after putting their hands on the football.

 

by rule, none of them actually possessed the football as a result of 1) leaving their feet in the process of the catch attempt and 2) not having control of the football at the point of impact with the ground.

 

The only reason fans are confused is because the media doesn't fully understand the NFL possession rules.  This stuff is clear cut and obvious if you read the rulebook.  I don't think most football media have ever read it all the way through though, and their ignorance helps confuse the fanbase.

So what you’re saying is that it’s clear?

 

Tell you what, maybe some of us don’t have time to read the NFL rulebook. Shocking I know. We’re just not at your level of amazing-ness.

[sreeb2deeni]

10 hours ago, DerekDiggler said:

Hard to see from this angle but go to the 6;33 mark

 

.

2:20-2:25

No holding on Turay??

3rd and 13 

Turay tackled to the ground. Would have had a hit on the QB. No call?!? 

Result of the play: TD Chargers

Colts play from behind the rest of the game.

[DougDew]

No TD.  Not even close.  Wouldn't have been even a completed pass in any part of the field at any point.

 

Having solid possession while in the air doesn't matter. While in great possession , Ebron landed with only one foot.  As soon as the next body part touched, the elbow, the ball came loose. 

 

Compared to a fumble, the ground can't cause a fumble because the RB has legal possession of the ball before he touched the ground.  Ebron never had legal possession at any time before the ground dislodged the ball.

 

It slid around on his body until he finally secured it while out of bounds.  Incomplete pass, any place on the field.

 

Dez had two feet on the ground, but then lost it while stretching for the goal line.  But he had two feet down with possession first.  That rule where the receiver has to make a football move made no sense, so they changed it.

 

Ebron's catch was not the same as Dez's.

[Luck 4 president]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No TD.  Not even close.  Wouldn't have been even a completed pass in any part of the field at any point.

 

Having solid possession while in the air doesn't matter. While in great possession , Ebron landed with only one foot.  As soon as the next body part touched, the elbow, the ball came loose. 

 

Compared to a fumble, the ground can't cause a fumble because the RB has legal possession of the ball before he touched the ground.  Ebron never had legal possession at any time before the ground dislodged the ball.

 

It slid around on his body until he finally secured it while out of bounds.  Incomplete pass, any place on the field.

 

Dez had two feet on the ground, but then lost it while stretching for the goal line.  But he had two feet down with possession first.  That rule where the receiver has to make a football move made no sense, so they changed it.

 

Ebron's catch was not the same as Dez's.

It would be complete anywhere else on the field besides the sidelines. Ball never hit the ground. It was only incomplete because he didn’t have control until he was out of bounds. Had he stayed in bounds then that is a complete pass 100/100 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:

It would be complete anywhere else on the field besides the sidelines. Ball never hit the ground. It was only incomplete because he didn’t have control until he was out of bounds. Had he stayed in bounds then that is a complete pass 100/100 

Ok, good point. 

 

I was coming from the angle that he didnt have possession when the ball was dislodged by the ground (or elbow hitting the ground).  If he would have been able to slide and stay in bounds, it would indeed have been a completion.

[BigQungus]

IMO, it's a catch. He catches it, gets 2 feet in, and his elbow hits the ground, all while not bobbling it. It's only when his back hits the ground that he bobbles it, but the play should be over at that point. 

 

It's weird to me that runners just have to "break the plane", and can let go of the ball immediately after it, but receivers have to hold on to the ball for like 5 seconds before it's considered a catch.

[BigQungus]

12 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:

It would be complete anywhere else on the field besides the sidelines. Ball never hit the ground. It was only incomplete because he didn’t have control until he was out of bounds. Had he stayed in bounds then that is a complete pass 100/100 

 

I think he had control, and then just, well, didn't exactly lose it, but bobbled it while going out of bounds

[Imgrandojji]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

No TD.  Not even close.  Wouldn't have been even a completed pass in any part of the field at any point.

 

Having solid possession while in the air doesn't matter. While in great possession , Ebron landed with only one foot.  As soon as the next body part touched, the elbow, the ball came loose. 

 

Compared to a fumble, the ground can't cause a fumble because the RB has legal possession of the ball before he touched the ground.  Ebron never had legal possession at any time before the ground dislodged the ball.

 

It slid around on his body until he finally secured it while out of bounds.  Incomplete pass, any place on the field.

 

Dez had two feet on the ground, but then lost it while stretching for the goal line.  But he had two feet down with possession first.  That rule where the receiver has to make a football move made no sense, so they changed it.

 

Ebron's catch was not the same as Dez's.

actually I disagree with you.  The "two feet down" rule is actually a "two feet down and possession" rule, remember that. 

 

The problem is the rule for what constitutes possession is different if you leave your feet.   If you're on your feet and in control of your body you transition instantly into a runner and possession is automatic.  People don't think about the possession part of the rule exactly because it is automatic, but it's still "two feet and possess the ball."

 

  If you make a lunging, leaping, diving or falling catch it's "2 feet down and survive the ground."  Has been for decades now.  If the ground knocks the ball loose, 2 feet don't matter.  even if he got 2 feet down and the ball is knocked loose on impact with terra firma, it's still not a legal catch because possession is only awarded after the receiver survives the ground.  Again this has been the rule forever.

 

Weird fact:  if he gets 2 feet down inbounds and then lands out of bounds,but maintains control, it's still a TD because he accomplished the requirements for possession, but until he legally possesses the ball it doesn't matter one damn bit what he does with his feet, and if you want possession the ball can't pop loose when you hit the ground no matter where you hit..

[Dark_Indy]

3 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

IT has literally nothing to do with where you are.  It has everything to do with exactly one thing:

 

Did you leave your feet in the process of attempting the catch.

 

That's it,  Esta todo.  C'est tout.  Ebron left his feet.  Megatron left his feet.  James left his feet.  Bryant left his feet.  None of them maintained control of the football through the full process of going to the ground after putting their hands on the football.

 

by rule, none of them actually possessed the football as a result of 1) leaving their feet in the process of the catch attempt and 2) not having control of the football at the point of impact with the ground.

 

The only reason fans are confused is because the media doesn't fully understand the NFL possession rules.  This stuff is clear cut and obvious if you read the rulebook.  I don't think most football media have ever read it all the way through though, and their ignorance helps confuse the fanbase.

 

It. Absolutely. Does.

 

But hey, if you want to be a condescending smart butt, go nuts.

 

If Ebron had caught that ball in the field of play, or hadn't slid out of bounds it would be called a catch. Ball didnt touch the ground, it's still live. However, because theres a change in the consistency of the rules (a player running towards the endzone and diving across the pylon doesnt have to maintain possession to the ground) but a player that catches the ball doesnt immediately score a touchdown when the ball crosses the plane of the endzone in possession. The rules are different depending on where you are on the field regarding catches and its silly.

[Imgrandojji]

11 minutes ago, Dark_Indy said:

 

 

If Ebron had caught that ball in the field of play, or hadn't slid out of bounds it would be called a catch. 

You can say that all you want, there's no way to prove it.  And no, it would not be ruled a catch because the rules here are pretty cut and dried.

 

situations like the Freeman catch or the Kearse catch, or the Edelman circus catch in SB51, are often cited as counterexamples but in each of these cases the player secures the ball before it hits the ground, they did survive the ground with possession (and in 2 cases got up and transitioned into runners) and the ball being loose was as a result of the ball deflecting in the air, not being knocked loose at the ground level.  Ebron didn't do that, neither did the other 3 people mention (Johnson, Bryant and James), they lost control on the ground and never regained it.

 

If you disagree, show me one time when a receiver bobbled the ball like that, slid out of bounds without ever regaining control, and it was ruled a TD.  We're talking touchdowns here, there should be plenty of video evidence.

 

I'll even accept examples at the college level even though NCAA rules are very different.  but you won't find one because the possession rules are very cut and dried, fans just don't like it when they lose a TD on what feels like a technicality.

[bluebombers87]

8 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

You can say that all you want, there's no way to prove it.  And no, it would not be ruled a catch because the rules here are pretty cut and dried.

 

situations like the Freeman catch or the Kearse catch, or the Edelman circus catch in SB51, are often cited as counterexamples but in each of these cases the player secures the ball before it hits the ground, they did survive the ground with possession (and in 2 cases got up and transitioned into runners) and the ball being loose was as a result of the ball deflecting in the air, not being knocked loose at the ground level.  Ebron didn't do that, neither did the other 3 people mention (Johnson, Bryant and James), they lost control on the ground and never regained it.

 

If you disagree, show me one time when a receiver bobbled the ball like that, slid out of bounds without ever regaining control, and it was ruled a TD.  We're talking touchdowns here, there should be plenty of video evidence.

 

I'll even accept examples at the college level even though NCAA rules are very different.  but you won't find one because the possession rules are very cut and dried, fans just don't like it when they lose a TD on what feels like a technicality.

You must be a blast at parties.

[Imgrandojji]

3 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

You must be a blast at parties.

Depends on the party.  I have a weird situation with my brain where I can't remember where I put my keys 5 minutes ago but I can remember something I read 15 years ago.  Means I have access to a lot of interesting stories

 

But yes, I tend to be exactly this didactic IRL, and it makes me a pain in the butt to deal with sometimes

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

actually I disagree with you.  The "two feet down" rule is actually a "two feet down and possession" rule, remember that. 

 

The problem is the rule for what constitutes possession is different if you leave your feet.   If you're on your feet and in control of your body you transition instantly into a runner and possession is automatic.  People don't think about the possession part of the rule exactly because it is automatic, but it's still "two feet and possess the ball."

 

  If you make a lunging, leaping, diving or falling catch it's "2 feet down and survive the ground."  Has been for decades now.  If the ground knocks the ball loose, 2 feet don't matter.  even if he got 2 feet down and the ball is knocked loose on impact with terra firma, it's still not a legal catch because possession is only awarded after the receiver survives the ground.  Again this has been the rule forever.

 

Weird fact:  if he gets 2 feet down inbounds and then lands out of bounds,but maintains control, it's still a TD because he accomplished the requirements for possession, but until he legally possesses the ball it doesn't matter one damn bit what he does with his feet, and if you want possession the ball can't pop loose when you hit the ground no matter where you hit..

I thought they changed the rule because of the Dez catch, where if he comes down with the ball secured and two feet in bounds AND crosses the plane of the end zone, like a RB, its a TD and the play is dead at that moment.  It doesn't matter if he was diving into the end zone, and lost it when he hit the ground, or staning in it and spiked it. 

 

It would be the same thing as the RB getting the ball slapped out of his hand right after crossing the plane.  Or TY losing it when he hit the ground after touching the pylon.

 

But maybe they didn't change the rule.

 

I was thinking that if Ebron got two feet down in the endzone after clearly snatching and securing the ball in the air, the play would be immediately dead, a TD, and him losing control on impact wouldn't matter.  

[Imgrandojji]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I thought they changed the rule because of the Dez catch, where if he comes down with the ball secured and two feet in bounds AND crosses the plane of the end zone, like a RB, its a TD and the play is dead at that moment.  It doesn't matter if he was diving into the end zone, and lost it when he hit the ground, or staning in it and spiked it. 

 

Yeah but we both know that's not what Ebron was doing.  He was trying to land on his back and cradle the ball and it came loose.

 

The Dez rule is about what happens when you are partially on your feet and have enough body control to make a move, change direction and stretch for a touchdown. That rule doesn't even apply to Jesse James' no catch, much less Ebron

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Yeah but we both know that's not what Ebron was doing.  He was trying to land on his back and cradle the ball and it came loose.

?  I know.  That's why it was incomplete.  I was saying that if he got the other foot down then the play would have been dead upon that moment and then anything after that, like losing it when he hit the ground, would not have mattered.

 

I'm still confused a bit.  So let me ask you. 

 

Would it have been a TD if it happened like I just described, or would it have still been incomplete because Ebron left his feet to dive to make the catch and he lost control upon hitting the ground but AFTER he got two feet down?

[Imgrandojji]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

?  I know.  That's why it was incomplete.  I was saying that if he got the other foot down then the play would have been dead upon that moment and then anything after that, like losing it when he hit the ground, would not have mattered.

 

I'm still confused a bit.  So let me ask you. 

 

Would it have been a TD if it happened like I just described, or would it have still been incomplete because Ebron left his feet to dive to make the catch and he lost control upon hitting the ground but AFTER he got two feet down?

the second of the two as I understand the rulebook.  Once you leave your feet you have to hold onto the ball all the way through the process of completing the catch. 

 

If you lose control of the ball before or during the landing, then you never had possession and without possession you cannot score.

 

However, if you do get your feet down and then land out of bounds, but complete the catch, it's a TD.  I think that's where your confusion is coming from.  But for that to happen, the ground can't knock the ball loose because without possession it doesn't matter where your feet have been.

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

the second of the two as I understand the rulebook.  Once you leave your feet you have to hold onto the ball all the way through the process of completing the catch. 

 

If you lose control of the ball before or during the landing, then you never had possession and without possession you cannot score.

 

 

So hitting the ground is part of the process of completing the catch.  Not simply touching the tips of two feet in bounds.

 

I guess when a receiver is stumbling, its an interpretation as to whether or not he had control of his body enough to call it a catch before he falls.

[IinD]

All nonsense aside. Ebron should have caught that. Forget the rule and all that jazz. That was very catchable and he couldn't hold on.

 

[Dark_Indy]

2 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

You can say that all you want, there's no way to prove it.  And no, it would not be ruled a catch because the rules here are pretty cut and dried.

 

situations like the Freeman catch or the Kearse catch, or the Edelman circus catch in SB51, are often cited as counterexamples but in each of these cases the player secures the ball before it hits the ground, they did survive the ground with possession (and in 2 cases got up and transitioned into runners) and the ball being loose was as a result of the ball deflecting in the air, not being knocked loose at the ground level.  Ebron didn't do that, neither did the other 3 people mention (Johnson, Bryant and James), they lost control on the ground and never regained it.

 

If you disagree, show me one time when a receiver bobbled the ball like that, slid out of bounds without ever regaining control, and it was ruled a TD.  We're talking touchdowns here, there should be plenty of video evidence.

 

 

 

Again, you completely miss the point I'm making for sake of some "Um... Actually..." rulebook quoting argument. 

 

The ball never touched the ground. If Ebron did not slide out of bounds, that would have been called a catch. That's the issue. If it's a catch on the 20 yard line, it should be a catch in the endzone. 

 

It has nothing to do with the endzone, it has nothing to do with any rule you quote about leaving your feet. The rules are applied inconsistently. That's the point I'm making, the same point that I have continued to make, and the point that you continue to miss at every turn. 

 

If at any point you have possession of the football and the football breaks the plane of the endzone, it should be a touchdown. Its applied that way for runners entering the endzone. Otherwise keep the rule the same, but make runners have to have two feet or a foot and a body part in the endzone and maintain possession to the ground. Consistency.

 

 

[Fluke_33]

2 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

Depends on the party.  I have a weird situation with my brain where I can't remember where I put my keys 5 minutes ago but I can remember something I read 15 years ago.  Means I have access to a lot of interesting stories

 

But yes, I tend to be exactly this didactic IRL, and it makes me a pain in the butt to deal with sometimes

If its a 70s swinger party, they are probably in the fish bowl with everyone else's keys.

[BlueCollarColts]

After watching it in slow motion on YouTube, that's 100% a catch. Foot is down and his elbow is down and he still has possession, he loses possession shortly after the elbow hits the ground but wen the elbow initially touches he has possession.

 

As far as I understand the new rules instituted this year, once you have 2 feet down and possession or one foot + a body part then that is considered a completed catch. AKA no more "completing the process to the ground", once you have possession, which Ebron did, and his foot and elbow touched, which they did, the play would've ended there. If you want to look at it, go on YouTube and look up the play and slow motion it as far as you can. It becomes clear the elbow touched and the ball doesn't come lose until after his elbow hits.

[ColtsBlueFL]

17 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The NFL changed the rule before the season. Do some research before posting it wasn't a catch in the endzone. If 2 feet are down or only 1 foot is down but another body part hits the endzone before bobbling the ball than it is a TD. Ebron had 1 foot down and his elbow hit the ground before he barely bobbled it.

 

Ahhh, almost, not quite.  There's actually 3 parts to get the catch, you have 2 of them, (a) & (b). the reworded last part (c) states-

 

after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 

 

I think part (c) was not satisfied in the eyes of the Refs and Al Riveron.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

 

I think the better argument for the catch is that movement does not necessarily constitute loss of control.  But Riveron would have reversed it if he felt that was the case.

 

3 parts, possession, body part(s), time.

[Dr. T]

16 hours ago, DerekDiggler said:

Hard to see from this angle but go to the 6;33 mark

 

.

Look at exactly 6:52. The frame will show his second foot down and him firmly still holding the ball. THAT WAS A TOUCHDOWN.

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 minutes ago, BlueCollarColts said:

After watching it in slow motion on YouTube, that's 100% a catch. Foot is down and his elbow is down and he still has possession, he loses possession shortly after the elbow hits the ground but wen the elbow initially touches he has possession.

 

As far as I understand the new rules instituted this year, once you have 2 feet down and possession or one foot + a body part then that is considered a completed catch. AKA no more "completing the process to the ground", once you have possession, which Ebron did, and his foot and elbow touched, which they did, the play would've ended there.

 

No, sorry.  See my post above, or this below-

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

[BlueCollarColts]

3 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Ahhh, almost, not quite.  There's actually 3 parts to get the catch, you have 2 of them, (a) & (b). the reworded last part (c) states-

 

after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 

 

I think part (c) was not satisfied in the eyes of the Refs and Al Riveron.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rul

3 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Ahhh, almost, not quite.  There's actually 3 parts to get the catch, you have 2 of them, (a) & (b). the reworded last part (c) states-

 

after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. 

 

I think part (c) was not satisfied in the eyes of the Refs and Al Riveron.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

 

I think the better argument for the catch is that movement does not necessarily constitute loss of control.  But Riveron would have reversed it if he felt that was the case.

 

3 parts, possession, body part(s), time.

es/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

 

I think the better argument for the catch is that movement does not necessarily constitute loss of control.  But Riveron would have reversed it if he felt that was the case.

 

3 parts, possession, body part(s), time.

I'm not following, how was C not fulfilled? He caught the ball fully extended and then clearly tucked it into his chest, which is explicitly stated as a possible criteria for it in the rules, no?

[ClaytonColt]

1 minute ago, Dr. T said:

Look at exactly 6:52. The frame will show his second foot down and him firmly still holding the ball. THAT WAS A TOUCHDOWN.

That doesn't constitute a catch. You have to keep possession of the ball and have the ability to perform a "football move"

 

He wasn't able to do that until he was out of bounds.

 

Similarly to the Autry call I can't believe how many people complain vociferously about calls that are correct by the wording of the rules.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

Look at exactly 6:52. The frame will show his second foot down and him firmly still holding the ball. THAT WAS A TOUCHDOWN.

 

I think The ball was moving when he was begining to make a move common to the game .  I'm not sure that was loss of possession, but the refs and Al Riveron evidently feel it was.

[BlueCollarColts]

https://media.giphy.com/media/SVrPA5Nua39SJCtWEC/giphy.gif

 

Here is the link to the play in question, I have no idea how you would not qualify what he did as tucking the ball away.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I have heard several people in the media say the reason why they changed the rule is because of what happened to Dez Bryant and that was the reason of the rule change, Dez's play would be a catch if it happened this season. Even Skip Bayless was happy about the rule change and made a snarky comment as usual - saying several years too late. Bottom line is Ebron clearly had possession tucked ball to his chest when both feet and his elbow hit the ground before he bobbled it. If that still isn't a catch than that is absurd and the rule change does no good.