the Ebron call

[ClaytonColt]

4 minutes ago, BlueCollarColts said:

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.

I don't think briefly pulling the ball towards your body and failing to control it counts as tucking the ball away. They're looking for more definite control than that.

[Dr. T]

13 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

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

 

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

You don't have to make a "football move" when you're in the endzone. Two feet down with  control is a touchdown. Look at the frame at 6:52. It does not matter what happens after that. The play is over. The "football move" thing is for a question for the rest of the field, not in the endzone. And I don't care what some talking head ex-ref says. They always agree with how it was called in the game to avert controversy.

[ColtsBlueFL]

7 minutes ago, BlueCollarColts said:

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?

 

On the surface, it would seem so. But in this case, no. Why? Read the rules closely-

 

After (a) and (b) have been fulfilled.  He tucks it in before (b) was fulfilled, thus (c) wasn't fulfilled yet.

[BlueCollarColts]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

On the surface, it would seem so. But in this case, no. Why? Read the rules closely-

 

After (a) and (b) have been fulfilled.  He tucks it in before (b) was fulfilled, thus (c) wasn't fulfilled yet.

Not quite though, once B was fulfilled, the play should be immediately over. A/B/C were all fulfilled as soon as his elbow touched the ground. There's nothing signifying C needs to be fulfilled for a certain period of time after B happens. The moment A/B/C are fulfilled, in this case the moment Ebron's elbow touches the ground, then the play is dead and it's a completed catch.

[ColtsBlueFL]

7 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

You don't have to make a "football move" when you're in the endzone. Two feet down with  control is a touchdown.

 

Wrong.  It's at the top of the rule I linked!
 

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone 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

c. 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. 

 

 

It's apparent the refs did not feel he maintained control of the ball long enough to be a completion.  I feel the ball didn't move enough to be loss of ocntrol, and if onfield refs would have ruled TD, Riveron would have upheld it too. Because that part isn't clear enough on video.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 minutes ago, BlueCollarColts said:

A/B/C were all fulfilled as soon as his elbow touched the ground.

 

The rule does not allow them to be fulfilled out of order - (a), (c), then (b). Sorry.

 

"after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled"

[Dr. T]

7 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

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.

What's CLEAR is the picture on frame 6:52. His second foot hits with both hands on the ball. What happens after that does not matter in the endzone.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Just now, Dr. T said:

What's CLEAR is the picture on frame 6:52. His second foot hits with both hands on the ball. What happens after that does not matter in the endzone.

 

Not correct.  See above.

[BlueCollarColts]

5 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

The rule does not allow them to be fulfilled out of order - (a), (c), then (b). Sorry.

 

"after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled"

Using that logic, then he would've been out of bounds even if he had completed the catch then, correct? He didn't make any additional football moves after touching the ground and slid out of bounds. What would be the difference if he kept control?

 

Let's say he kept control of the ball, what criteria did he fulfill? No football move was made.

[BlueCollarColts]

5 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Not correct.  See above.

You're being far too strict in your interpretation of the rules. We see guys catch the ball inbounds with 2 feet and make no football moves at all before sliding out of bounds and it's considered a catch. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 minutes ago, BlueCollarColts said:

Using that logic, then he would've been out of bounds even if he had completed the catch then, correct? He didn't make any additional football moves after touching the ground and slid out of bounds. What would be the difference if he kept control?

 

Let's say he kept control of the ball, what criteria did he fulfill? No football move was made.

 

the "maintains control of the ball long enough to do so" part (Time); without even actually doing it.  Even if that includes sliding out of bounds while hanging on.  It counts and finishes the catch/play.

 

I've heard Bill Polian explain this rule upmteen times on SiriusXM radio these last few years.  H

[BlueCollarColts]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

the "maintains control of the ball long enough to do so" part (Time); without even actually doing it.  Even if that includes sliding out of bounds while hanging on.  It counts and finishes the catch/play.

 

I've heard Bill Polian explain this rule upmteen times on SiriusXM radio these last few years.  H

I'll take your word for it, but your explanation of why it was not a catch does not match up with the explanation Dean Blandino gave for why it is not a catch.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Bill was on the competition committee.  He explains it is a wordy rule (that has gotten mild re-wording) but boils down to possession/control, body parts in bounds, time. In that order.  I'll check Dean's Podcast on it when it is out.

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/good-calls-with-dean-blandino/id1476318998

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[colt18]

The catch rule is *ic. The refs don’t know what a catch is, the refs make calls on a case by case basis. I feel like that should’ve been ruled a TD but whatever. 

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

19 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

This deserves its own topic.

 

First of all, I feel like the refs could have gone either way on the call, but they didn't "get it wrong."  This is basically the Dez Bryant catch, which was by far the least controversial of the "controversial" no-catch calls (Megatron, Dez, James, and now Ebron) and the bandaid the league put on the rules doesn't change the fundamental nature of how possession works when a receiver leaves his feet.

 

The rule is very simple.  If you're leaving your feet to get the ball, and the ground knocks it loose, you never had it.  Ebron made a great attempt to keep control but the ground knocked it loose.  Just like Bryant Ebron tried to corral the loose ball on his body, but it was still a loose ball.  Result: incomplete pass, and he never had possession.   Obviously you can't score a touchdown without possession of the football.

 

Does it suck?  yes.  Does it look to the layman's eye like a touchdown?  Yes, he's across the plane and the ball didn't actually fall off his body until after he came to rest, just like Dez.  But he still doesn't control the football and the rules are what they are.

My only beef with this rule is he had possession, a knee and an elbow hit in bounds across the goal line. At that point, play should be dead. Regardless what happens next. Kind of like if you stretch out with the ball, in bounds, across the plain, ball hits ground and bounces into the bleachers. Both should be TDs.

[Imgrandojji]

3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

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.

Not quite.  Good try, you're close.  I don't want to sound like I'm putting you down but you're missing something fundamental.

 

We're not judging touchdown or no touchdown here.

 

Were judging possession or no possession.  The rule in question is abou what constitutes a successful catch that grants the possession required to score a touchdown.

 

When the ground knocked the ball out of Ebron's hands, that made it an incomplete pass.  At that point it doesn't matter what else he does.

 

The only question that matters there is this:  Did Ebron survive the ground, or did he not survive the ground.  Everything else is a red-herring-and-sophistry salad.

 

Seems clear to me according to my understanding of the rules that Ebron did not survive the ground.  The ball was knocked loose.  It was in contact with Ebron but if you're being honest, you'll reognize that Ebron has no control over the ball after he hits the ground. 

 

No control, no catch

 

No catch no possession

 

No possession no touchdown.

[Imgrandojji]

3 hours ago, BlueCollarColts said:

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?

And then after he touched it, he hit the ground and the ball instantly popped loose as a result of contact with the ground.

 

This is the part people have trouble with.  He did not control the ball throughout the process of leaving his feet therefore it was an incomplete pass.

[Imgrandojji]

2 hours ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

My only beef with this rule is he had possession, a knee and an elbow hit in bounds across the goal line. At that point, play should be dead. Regardless what happens next. Kind of like if you stretch out with the ball, in bounds, across the plain, ball hits ground and bounces into the bleachers. Both should be TDs.

this is the problem.  He did NOT have possession.  Not until he completed the process of going to the ground while still holding the football.

 

I know, he was holding the football, it looks for all the world like possession, but under the rules, if you don't hold the ball until after you complete your landing, you never had possession.

 

So no, Ebron did not have possession.  He just had the ball until he hit the ground and then he suddenly didn't

[luvdacolts67]

22 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

This deserves its own topic.

 

First of all, I feel like the refs could have gone either way on the call, but they didn't "get it wrong."  This is basically the Dez Bryant catch, which was by far the least controversial of the "controversial" no-catch calls (Megatron, Dez, James, and now Ebron) and the bandaid the league put on the rules doesn't change the fundamental nature of how possession works when a receiver leaves his feet.

 

The rule is very simple.  If you're leaving your feet to get the ball, and the ground knocks it loose, you never had it.  Ebron made a great attempt to keep control but the ground knocked it loose.  Just like Bryant Ebron tried to corral the loose ball on his body, but it was still a loose ball.  Result: incomplete pass, and he never had possession.   Obviously you can't score a touchdown without possession of the football.

 

Does it suck?  yes.  Does it look to the layman's eye like a touchdown?  Yes, he's across the plane and the ball didn't actually fall off his body until after he came to rest, just like Dez.  But he still doesn't control the football and the rules are what they are.

 I think he had possession of it in the air no problem it’s when he hit the ground that it bobbled 

[luvdacolts67]

22 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

 Boy isn’t that the truth I was screaming about the Holding it was totally obvious .

[life long]

LETS GO COLTS!!!!!

[Imgrandojji]

44 minutes ago, luvdacolts67 said:

 I think he had possession of it in the air no problem it’s when he hit the ground that it bobbled 

Then he never had possession.  There's more to possession than physically holding a football.

[Dogg63]

I've never felt clear on this rule. If a receiver catches the ball near the sideline, drags both feet inbounds, then falls out of bounds and bobbles the ball the moment he crashes into the ground, is that a catch or not?

[jvan1973]

Games over,   it was reviewed.  No catch.   Ebron will make up for it 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Games over,   it was reviewed.  No catch.   Ebron will make up for it 

I agree, I am over it. I just wanted to stress I thought it was a catch but crap happens. On to Tennessee.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

Then he never had possession.  There's more to possession than physically holding a football.

Possession and completing the catch is obviously a judgment call.  Question:

 

What if a receiver leaps straight up to catch the ball, snatches and grabs it cleanly like Ebron did, then, after his toes touch the ground but before the heels do, he begins to lose control and finally bobbles it enough and steps out of bounds.

 

Just curious as whether or not when the receivers toes hit the ground he completed the catch (like they do with one foot on a sideline drag), or if he would have to have his heels touch the ground in order for it to be called a catch.

 

Apparently, Ebron did all of that, except he was horizontal when his toes touched and his elbow hit later. 

 

Oh well, its academic.  

[Pacergeek]

NFL has very confusing rules regarding what constitutes as a catch. No transparency at all. Whomever made these rules should be fired. Ebron caught the ball. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

Not quite.  Good try, you're close.  I don't want to sound like I'm putting you down but you're missing something fundamental.

 

Maybe you are as well.  Such as this

 

Notes:

Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.

 

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

We're not judging touchdown or no touchdown here.

 

Were judging possession or no possession.  The rule in question is abou what constitutes a successful catch that grants the possession required to score a touchdown.

 

When the ground knocked the ball out of Ebron's hands,

 

 

It didn't, it just made it 'move' a little.  not pop out and then back in.

 

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

that made it an incomplete pass.

 

No, it never hit the ground, so it wasn't incomplete because of that.

However,  movement stopped just after he had slid over the back end zone boundary line. I think they rule no control as he crossed the line.

 

So now it goes back to the above...

Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.

 

Now, the question becomes... how much movement is necessary to conclude loss of control?  Apparently, that was enough for the ref to say he lost control.  The replay is not clear enough he had clear control, even with the movement, so Al Riveron is stuck with upholding the call. That is the way I see it as the rule is written.

 

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

 At that point it doesn't matter what else he does.

 

The only question that matters there is this:  Did Ebron survive the ground, or did he not survive the ground. 

 

He survived the ground as far as it never hitting the turf, yes. Definitely.  The question is, did he do so with complete control while in bounds, or was it only fully secured after crossing out of bounds. Once Again-

 

Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.

 

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

Everything else is a red-herring-and-sophistry salad.

 

Seems clear to me according to my understanding of the rules that Ebron did not survive the ground.  The ball was knocked loose.  It was in contact with Ebron but if you're being honest, you'll reognize that Ebron has no control over the ball after he hits the ground. 

 

I haven't seen a replay clear enough to demonstrate the ball was out of control, then control regained.  I have game Pass, I'll check all network angles they have.

 

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

No control, no catch

 

Agreed, but what level of movement constitutes no control?

Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control.

 

Going to watch Last Call, and Good calls podcast when released and see what Blandino/Pereira

say.  Not mentioned on Last Call.  Just the Carolina catch play.  Darn.

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

 

[jimmy g]

2 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

Not quite.  Good try, you're close.  I don't want to sound like I'm putting you down but you're missing something fundamental.

 

We're not judging touchdown or no touchdown here.

 

Were judging possession or no possession.  The rule in question is abou what constitutes a successful catch that grants the possession required to score a touchdown.

 

When the ground knocked the ball out of Ebron's hands, that made it an incomplete pass.  At that point it doesn't matter what else he does.

 

The only question that matters there is this:  Did Ebron survive the ground, or did he not survive the ground.  Everything else is a red-herring-and-sophistry salad.

 

Seems clear to me according to my understanding of the rules that Ebron did not survive the ground.  The ball was knocked loose.  It was in contact with Ebron but if you're being honest, you'll reognize that Ebron has no control over the ball after he hits the ground. 

 

No control, no catch

 

No catch no possession

 

No possession no touchdown.

My question is- was he still bobbling it when his shoulder hit the end line? (I assume he must have been?) Because the ball never touched the ground. Had it been out on the field of play, the ball would still be live and eventually complete, as he kept it above the ground...  If he slid out of bounds while bobbling, then they got it right (not much to my liking).

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Imgrandojji said:

Then he never had possession.  There's more to possession than physically holding a football.

 

To be clear, crossing out of bounds before reestablishing control causes the lack of possession and thus incompletion.  Had the ball popped out (I say it only moved but Toe May Toe, Tuh Mah Toe) and he re-controls it before it touches the ground or player crosses line out out bounds, it is a catch.  It's a, b, and c together, all within bounds.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

My question is- was he still bobbling it when his shoulder hit the end line? (I assume he must have been?) Because the ball never touched the ground. Had it been out on the field of play, the ball would still be live and eventually complete, as he kept it above the ground...  If he slid out of bounds while bobbling, then they got it right (much to my liking).

He had both feet down and his elbow even hit while he clearly had possession of the ball to his chest with both hands on it securely before he bobbled it. That to me is a TD. After he hit the ground he bobbled it but at that point who cares, on to Tennessee. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

after his toes touch the ground but before the heels do, he begins to lose control and finally bobbles it enough and steps out of bounds.

 

Incomplete, because it did not satisfy (c), the 'time' element, with full control.

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Just curious as whether or not when the receivers toes hit the ground he completed the catch (like they do with one foot on a sideline drag), or if he would have to have his heels touch the ground in order for it to be called a catch.

 

When heels come down, they must be in bounds too, without any bobbling.  Then maintain control (with no bobble) just long enough in time a 'football move could have been started', even if one wasn't actually performed.

[ColtStrong2013]

On 9/8/2019 at 8:51 PM, 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

 

And had they not, this defensive line would have turned 4 sacks into 7 or 8 real quick...

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He had both feet down and his elbow even hit while he clearly had possession of the ball to his chest with both hands on it securely before he bobbled it. That to me is a TD. After he hit the ground he bobbled it but at that point who cares, on to Tennessee. 

 

Refs care.  Does not satisfy Time element. Listen to this begin at 10:00 minute mark, but especially at 11:40-

 

Control (a), 2 Feet (b), element of Time (c)

 

 

[Imgrandojji]

41 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Possession and completing the catch is obviously a judgment call.  Question:

 

What if a receiver leaps straight up to catch the ball, snatches and grabs it cleanly like Ebron did, then, after his toes touch the ground but before the heels do, he begins to lose control and finally bobbles it enough and steps out of bounds.

That's happened actually.  And it's the same thing,   Touchdowns have been called back because of it actually.  There was a rather famous one against the patriots, IIRC it was either a Buffalo or Miami receiver, he had the ball, one step, two, both in bounds but he was still juggling the football a little bit and didn't have firm control until a third step which was out of bounds.  No catch, no touchdown.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Refs care.  Does not satisfy Time element. Listen to this begin at 10:00 minute mark, but especially at 11:40-

 

Control (a), 2 Feet (b), element of Time (c)

 

 

Then the rule change doesn't matter apparently. They made the rule change because of this very reason regarding the Ebron play and what happened to Dez so it would never happen again. So I guess they will continue to just rob players out of a TD. SMH

[Imgrandojji]

23 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

To be clear, crossing out of bounds before reestablishing control causes the lack of possession and thus incompletion.  Had the ball popped out (I say it only moved but Toe May Toe, Tuh Mah Toe) and he re-controls it before it touches the ground or player crosses line out out bounds, it is a catch.  It's a, b, and c together, all within bounds.

 

 

Agreed, that's basically the Kearse catch or the Freeman catch.

[Imgrandojji]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Then the rule change doesn't matter apparently. They made the rule change because of this very reason regarding the Ebron play and Dez play. So I guess they will continue to just rob players out of a TD. SMH

The Dez play had one difference from the Ebron play, and that's that Dez maintained  some kind of control after he grabbed the football.  He had his feet partway under him and was able to change direction and move for the end zone.  THAT scenario was changed in the rulebook and would have helped Bryant and possibly Jesse James, but not Ebron who completely left his feet.

[Imgrandojji]

14 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Refs care.  Does not satisfy Time element. Listen to this begin at 10:00 minute mark, but especially at 11:40-

 

Control (a), 2 Feet (b), element of Time (c)

 

 

Time isn't the problem.  The example of the Edelman catch makes it pretty obvious that not a lot of time is required.  Edelman got his hands on the ball hundredths of a second before he hit the ground, but because super-slow-mo shewed there was clear air between the ball and the ground when Edelman grabbed the ball, and Edelman didn't lose his hold, it was a good catch.

 

The time factor such as it is only matters when the player tries to transition into a runner.    If he's down by contact at the point of landing it's not really an issue.   James did, Bryant did, Edelman and Ebron really didn't.

 

Time factor is also not an issue in the end zone where possession automatically grants a TD due to being over the plane. 

 

The whole issue with Ebron is he didn't secure possession.  If he'd held on rather than the ground knocking the ball loose at the point of landing, that's clearly a TD.  It's all about losing the ball.  Time isn't a factor.