Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

2 Point Conversion - Was that really a completed forward pass?


RobertAP
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't get the see the game live, and I'm not seeing any multi-angle replays of the play, but it looked like an incomplete pass to me. Kelce catches it and falls to the ground, where the ball comes out. No football move, and receivers are expected to maintain possession through the ground. Did I miss something here? Did it look like a completion from other angles?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobertAP said:

I didn't get the see the game live, and I'm not seeing any multi-angle replays of the play, but it looked like an incomplete pass to me. Kelce catches it and falls to the ground, where the ball comes out. No football move, and receivers are expected to maintain possession through the ground. Did I miss something here? Did it look like a completion from other angles?

The flea flicker play was an illegal forward pass to. The guy throw the ball to mahomes who moves forward as he is catching it , technically not a lateral pass tbh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jbaron04 said:

The flea flicker play was an illegal forward pass to. The guy throw the ball to mahomes who moves forward as he is catching it , technically not a lateral pass tbh 

Doesn't matter how Mahomes is moving, as long as the ball is thrown on a line behind the thrower it is a lateral. Even if mahomes is runnign up to catch it

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jbaron04 said:

The flea flicker play was an illegal forward pass to. The guy throw the ball to mahomes who moves forward as he is catching it , technically not a lateral pass tbh 

 

All that matters is the pass is lateral (backwards). On that play, the ball was definitely thrown lateral (backwards) to Mahomes. Mahomes movement is irrelevant. That was perfectly legal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ColtsLegacy said:

No it was incomplete and, even if you somehow think it's complete, he was clearly short of the end zone. It's amazing to me how the "best of the best" referees constantly screw up basic and obvious stuff.


Was there no challenge/replay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't understand why he didn't have to complete the catch by maintaining control and coming up with the ball after hitting the ground, which he did not.  There were a lot of terrible calls yesterday.... mostly against the Colts but even some against the Chiefs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refs were terrible in this game (both ways) and I know it's difficult to be impartial being a Colts fan but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could have considered that a successful conversion. I agree that even if you consider it possession and a football move he was definitely short of breaking the plane. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cjrulli said:

Refs were terrible in this game (both ways) and I know it's difficult to be impartial being a Colts fan but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could have considered that a successful conversion. I agree that even if you consider it possession and a football move he was definitely short of breaking the plane. 


The pride and egos of these refs are ridiculous. The replays showed multiple angles he was just short of the the end zone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Virtuoso80 said:

It was a 2pt conversion so it is automatically reviewed.

 

Right.  And if I remember correctly, they didn't confirm the call.  Meaning they didn't have conclusive evidence to overturn it.

 

It was really close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Right.  And if I remember correctly, they didn't confirm the call.  Meaning they didn't have conclusive evidence to overturn it.

 

It was really close.

Call stands. Not confirmed

 

Edit. So yes, you remember correctly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ColtsLegacy said:

No it was incomplete and, even if you somehow think it's complete, he was clearly short of the end zone. It's amazing to me how the "best of the best" referees constantly screw up basic and obvious stuff.

It was like this "interception" 

 

image.png.69fbb110125cc8f920a0c0ff116785da.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I think that call may have topped yesterday's, some of these REFS need glasses.

If it were up to me, they'd be investigated for gambling on games they're calling.  The Luck pick that never existed and the "catch" yesterday were just so bad, that's honestly what goes through more peoples' heads than "oh, that was a mistake."  

 

In regards to yesterday's 2 point conversion, his "possession" and making the catch should have been incomplete.  He's got to have control and only after he secures possession, he must make a football move (I think the rulebook says "make a football act") OR maintain possession long enough to make such football move.

 

I mean you can see these pics.  214978113_Kelce2PointConv(2).jpg.c7a4af9b1aa61cad6fc4c45f4bebddba.jpg

 

Before the start of possession (first pic) and when his knee is clearly on the ground (2nd). Either that is possession/control and a football move and is complete and down.  OR he has not satisfied the football move component.  The rules clearly say in the notes that if he ahs not satisfied the act of making a football move, then if the player contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an imcomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control.  Right after the 2nd pic, he starts moving forward and the ball is moving in his hands and then it hits the ground and bounces away.  And here's the thing, this is all in like 2 seconds of slow motion replay.  In real time, we're talking split seconds.  .25s-.50s tops in real time (and that still may be too generous).    It's tough to see in the second image, but you can save to your desktop and blow it up, but in the 2nd image, you can see without any doubt that the ball is behind the line.  So either he is down because he has control and has made a football act.  Or he has not made a football act and has started to lose control of the ball and in the process of completing the pass.  You can't say, "Well, in the 1/2 second time he had possession and later made a football move without control of the ball.  Touchdown."  It has to be performed simultaneously.  And that was not the case on that play.

 

Refs have never been able to agree on "What is a catch" and calls like this don't ever seem to help.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If it were up to me, they'd be investigated for gambling on games they're calling.  The Luck pick that never existed and the "catch" yesterday were just so bad, that's honestly what goes through more peoples' heads than "oh, that was a mistake."  

 

In regards to yesterday's 2 point conversion, his "possession" and making the catch should have been incomplete.  He's got to have control and only after he secures possession, he must make a football move (I think the rulebook says "make a football act") OR maintain possession long enough to make such football move.

 

I mean you can see these pics.  214978113_Kelce2PointConv(2).jpg.c7a4af9b1aa61cad6fc4c45f4bebddba.jpg

 

Before the start of possession (first pic) and when his knee is clearly on the ground (2nd). Either that is possession/control and a football move and is complete and down.  OR he has not satisfied the football move component.  The rules clearly say in the notes that if he ahs not satisfied the act of making a football move, then if the player contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an imcomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control.  Right after the 2nd pic, he starts moving forward and the ball is moving in his hands and then it hits the ground and bounces away.  And here's the thing, this is all in like 2 seconds of slow motion replay.  In real time, we're talking split seconds.  .25s-.50s tops in real time (and that still may be too generous).    It's tough to see in the second image, but you can save to your desktop and blow it up, but in the 2nd image, you can see without any doubt that the ball is behind the line.  So either he is down because he has control and has made a football act.  Or he has not made a football act and has started to lose control of the ball and in the process of completing the pass.  You can't say, "Well, in the 1/2 second time he had possession and later made a football move without control of the ball.  Touchdown."  It has to be performed simultaneously.  And that was not the case on that play.

 

Refs have never been able to agree on "What is a catch" and calls like this don't ever seem to help.

 

 

 

My biggest problem with this call was that he never actually had possession of the ball... He was bobbling it from the very start to the very end when he actually dropped it... The ball was moving from the moment it touched his hands to the moment it left his hands. He never actually caught that ball. That was such a nonsense call. And I understand getting it wrong in the moment it's happening. But how the hell do you get that call wrong after watching it on slowed down replay for 5 minutes?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If it were up to me, they'd be investigated for gambling on games they're calling.  The Luck pick that never existed and the "catch" yesterday were just so bad, that's honestly what goes through more peoples' heads than "oh, that was a mistake."  

 

In regards to yesterday's 2 point conversion, his "possession" and making the catch should have been incomplete.  He's got to have control and only after he secures possession, he must make a football move (I think the rulebook says "make a football act") OR maintain possession long enough to make such football move.

 

I mean you can see these pics.  214978113_Kelce2PointConv(2).jpg.c7a4af9b1aa61cad6fc4c45f4bebddba.jpg

 

Before the start of possession (first pic) and when his knee is clearly on the ground (2nd). Either that is possession/control and a football move and is complete and down.  OR he has not satisfied the football move component.  The rules clearly say in the notes that if he ahs not satisfied the act of making a football move, then if the player contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an imcomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control.  Right after the 2nd pic, he starts moving forward and the ball is moving in his hands and then it hits the ground and bounces away.  And here's the thing, this is all in like 2 seconds of slow motion replay.  In real time, we're talking split seconds.  .25s-.50s tops in real time (and that still may be too generous).    It's tough to see in the second image, but you can save to your desktop and blow it up, but in the 2nd image, you can see without any doubt that the ball is behind the line.  So either he is down because he has control and has made a football act.  Or he has not made a football act and has started to lose control of the ball and in the process of completing the pass.  You can't say, "Well, in the 1/2 second time he had possession and later made a football move without control of the ball.  Touchdown."  It has to be performed simultaneously.  And that was not the case on that play.

 

Refs have never been able to agree on "What is a catch" and calls like this don't ever seem to help.

 

 

 

If I was your boss I'd fire you immediately....so you could become an NFL referee and bring some consistency to the job.

Great post, well said. 100% right.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stitches said:

My biggest problem with this call was that he never actually had possession of the ball... He was bobbling it from the very start to the very end when he actually dropped it... The ball was moving from the moment it touched his hands to the moment it left his hands. He never actually caught that ball. That was such a nonsense call. And I understand getting it wrong in the moment it's happening. But how the hell do you get that call wrong after watching it on slowed down replay for 5 minutes?

I agree with you.  It looked like he was trying to catch jello except it didn't splat when it hit the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JediXMan said:


The pride and egos of these refs are ridiculous. The replays showed multiple angles he was just short of the the end zone.

 

I thought the initial grab looked like it was just barely over the line.  That's what our section thought on the big screen anyway.  Certainly not overturnable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I thought the initial grab looked like it was just barely over the line.  That's what our section thought on the big screen anyway.  Certainly not overturnable. 

He never had possession, his knee was down too before the goaline and even the pessimists in here agree with me. Romo, Nantz, and Gene said that was incomplete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He never had possession, his knee was down too before the goaline and even the pessimists in here agree with me. Romo, Nantz, and Gene said that was incomplete. 

 

Well It looked good to me.  That's all I can tell you.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If it were up to me, they'd be investigated for gambling on games they're calling.  The Luck pick that never existed and the "catch" yesterday were just so bad, that's honestly what goes through more peoples' heads than "oh, that was a mistake."  

 

In regards to yesterday's 2 point conversion, his "possession" and making the catch should have been incomplete.  He's got to have control and only after he secures possession, he must make a football move (I think the rulebook says "make a football act") OR maintain possession long enough to make such football move.

 

I mean you can see these pics.  214978113_Kelce2PointConv(2).jpg.c7a4af9b1aa61cad6fc4c45f4bebddba.jpg

 

Before the start of possession (first pic) and when his knee is clearly on the ground (2nd). Either that is possession/control and a football move and is complete and down.  OR he has not satisfied the football move component.  The rules clearly say in the notes that if he ahs not satisfied the act of making a football move, then if the player contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an imcomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control.  Right after the 2nd pic, he starts moving forward and the ball is moving in his hands and then it hits the ground and bounces away.  And here's the thing, this is all in like 2 seconds of slow motion replay.  In real time, we're talking split seconds.  .25s-.50s tops in real time (and that still may be too generous).    It's tough to see in the second image, but you can save to your desktop and blow it up, but in the 2nd image, you can see without any doubt that the ball is behind the line.  So either he is down because he has control and has made a football act.  Or he has not made a football act and has started to lose control of the ball and in the process of completing the pass.  You can't say, "Well, in the 1/2 second time he had possession and later made a football move without control of the ball.  Touchdown."  It has to be performed simultaneously.  And that was not the case on that play.

 

Refs have never been able to agree on "What is a catch" and calls like this don't ever seem to help.

 

 

 

 

It's before that that he was ruled in the EZ.  Do you have a still of the initial touching of the ball?  That looked like it was just barely touching the plane.  After he moves back towards the LOS, he never gets back in, but they showed this play a million times on the big screen and it looked really close at the initial point of contact on the jumbo tron.  Definitely too close to overturn.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We do need our own talk show @chad72was right because we can't agree on anything. That was obvious that 2 pt conversion should've been reversed. Thanks Skip (sarcasm)

 

Well my section at the game didn't agree.  The two stills up there aren't the shots that show what the monitors were showing for the plane crossing. There is a point prior to that when the ball is either touching or imperceptibly not touching the Goal line.


I am not sure what they were showing on TV. But at the stadium they kept replaying that part.  It certainly was not a clear an obvious error at the initial point of the catch. 

 

Those two stills are obviuosly outside the zone, but he intitial contact is further downfield than that .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Well my section at the game didn't agree.  The two stills up there aren't the shots that show what the monitors were showing for the plane crossing. There is a point prior to that when the ball is either touching or imperceptibly not touching the Goal line.


I am not sure what they were showing on TV. But at the stadium they kept replaying that part.  It certainly was not a clear an obvious error at the initial point of the catch. 

 

Those two stills are obviuosly outside the zone, but he intitial contact is further downfield than that .

So you disagree with Gene who was a former Ref, Romo, and Nantz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

It's before that that he was ruled in the EZ.  Do you have a still of the initial touching of the ball?  That looked like it was just barely touching the plane.  After he moves back towards the LOS, he never gets back in, but they showed this play a million times on the big screen and it looked really close at the initial point of contact on the jumbo tron.  Definitely too close to overturn.

I had a really hard time catching anything with clarity.  Without making the stills (because it was a PIA) if you were to pause, it would look like a catch in the first frame you can see anything.  But the ball starts rolling in between his hands immediately after until the ball gets around his hips where you then get the first picture above.  It would be an abusive reading of the rules if you could say he caught the ball with two feet in the field of play and have made a football move during that split second when he got hit.  If that's what they're calling a catch in the NFL these days, there are going to be lots more games of teams getting screwed over if that's the refs interpretation of the rules, which the NFL has been trying to fix (with little success BTW).  I think they were basing it on the 0.2 s where he had possession and moving the ball with both hands on it from his hips to the goal line and his knee was on the ground.  The Refs just gave him 6 inches and that can't be the case.  I mean, trying to be as objective as possible, because it was a close call, if you had to polled every NFL referee and showed them this play and say, "Rank in order from best decision to worst.  Refer to rule (section, number, citation) on Completing a Catch. Is this play a (a) completion and score, (b) completion and down by contact and (c) incomplete pass, the majority would be split as to whether their best and second best was (b) or (c), but I'd be willing to bet that (a) would far and away the worst one.  

 

I mean it ultimately is a moot point now, so all this conversation is just for fun, but I think Kelce's reaction said it all.  Just throw your hands up and say, "I'll take it."  Because you know he wasn't sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Well my section at the game didn't agree.  The two stills up there aren't the shots that show what the monitors were showing for the plane crossing. There is a point prior to that when the ball is either touching or imperceptibly not touching the Goal line.


I am not sure what they were showing on TV. But at the stadium they kept replaying that part.  It certainly was not a clear an obvious error at the initial point of the catch. 

 

Those two stills are obviuosly outside the zone, but he intitial contact is further downfield than that .

Yeah, and wee don't have the same tools the refs do.  The stills I sent are basically what we saw on the TV.  See it here: https://www.chiefs.com/video/two-points-patrick-mahomes-finds-travis-kelce-on-two-point-conversion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So you disagree with Gene who was a former Ref, Romo, and Nantz?

 

I Can't copy the file because it says a screen shot is too large a file, but you would clearly see that the ball was likely over the goal line when Kelce first touches it, or at least too close to overturn.  I'm going to see if I can figure out how to put a file on here with it.

 

Now after that it is debatable whether or not he secures the catch.  The ball does move, but he never really loses possession of it.  He does reach the ball toward the goal which is a FB move I guess.   

 

But looking at this screen shot, the ball is clearly over the plane when TK touches the ball initially. 

 

 

Well CBE I really worked hard on how to get this screen shot on the post here and can't figure it out.  But TK's initial touch was almost certainly over the plane. 

 

Wait I finally got it lol. Spent about 30 minutes on it. 

 

 

TK.pdfTK.pdf

 

God that was hard.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I had a really hard time catching anything with clarity.  Without making the stills (because it was a PIA) if you were to pause, it would look like a catch in the first frame you can see anything.  But the ball starts rolling in between his hands immediately after until the ball gets around his hips where you then get the first picture above.  It would be an abusive reading of the rules if you could say he caught the ball with two feet in the field of play and have made a football move during that split second when he got hit.  If that's what they're calling a catch in the NFL these days, there are going to be lots more games of teams getting screwed over if that's the refs interpretation of the rules, which the NFL has been trying to fix (with little success BTW).  I think they were basing it on the 0.2 s where he had possession and moving the ball with both hands on it from his hips to the goal line and his knee was on the ground.  The Refs just gave him 6 inches and that can't be the case.  I mean, trying to be as objective as possible, because it was a close call, if you had to polled every NFL referee and showed them this play and say, "Rank in order from best decision to worst.  Refer to rule (section, number, citation) on Completing a Catch. Is this play a (a) completion and score, (b) completion and down by contact and (c) incomplete pass, the majority would be split as to whether their best and second best was (b) or (c), but I'd be willing to bet that (a) would far and away the worst one.  

 

I mean it ultimately is a moot point now, so all this conversation is just for fun, but I think Kelce's reaction said it all.  Just throw your hands up and say, "I'll take it."  Because you know he wasn't sure.

 

O Lord dude.  Trying to interpret what the rules are is crazy.  The ball can actually move even roll I guess IIRC if you never lose possession.  Then it can even touch the ground now as long is it doesn't move lol.  It doesn't have to be your hands which secures possession either.  I think you can actually secure a catch with your hand and your butt, lol.  I saw that one time.  Dude had a ball pinned on his cheeks. 

 

I was referring to a post that said it was short, well it wasn't.  That was on the jumbotron at the stadium.  I finally got the PDF for it.  We weren't hearing any of the commentary either. 

 

After that, catch interpretations are crazy.  but the Pigskin almost certainly was touching TKS hands and across the plane in this still. 

 They are tying to codify something that is subjective.  Always gonna lead to issues 

 

TK.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

O Lord dude.  Trying to interpret what the rules are is crazy.  The ball can actually move even roll I guess IIRC if you never lose possession.  Then it can even touch the ground now as long is it doesn't move lol.  It doesn't have to be your hands which secures possession either.  I think you can actually secure a catch with your hand and your butt, lol.  I saw that one time.  Dude had a ball pinned on his cheeks. 

 

I was referring to a post that said it was short, well it wasn't.  That was on the jumbotron at the stadium.  I finally got the PDF for it.  We weren't hearing any of the commentary either. 

 

After that, catch interpretations are crazy.  but the Pigskin almost certainly was touching TKS hands and across the plane in this still. 

 They are tying to codify something that is subjective.  Always gonna lead to issues 

 

TK.pdf 146.25 kB · 0 downloads

Yup.  And what's crazy is when you're watching on TV and probably at the stadium, the whole damn thing happened so fast it was impossible for the eyes to even process everything.  We weren't sure at home either and it was close enough that I couldn't really even be mad.  If we look at this stuff and take out our fandom, out of the equation, we'd be just as split.  I'm sure the refs would be too.  I still think more people thought that it wasn't possession anda catch, I mean a simple search on twitter I think confirms that though. I'd be curious what it would be if you asked every ref in the NFL, though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Yup.  And what's crazy is when you're watching on TV and probably at the stadium, the whole damn thing happened so fast it was impossible for the eyes to even process everything.  We weren't sure at home either and it was close enough that I couldn't really even be mad.  If we look at this stuff and take out our fandom, out of the equation, we'd be just as split.  I'm sure the refs would be too.  I still think more people thought that it wasn't possession anda catch, I mean a simple search on twitter I think confirms that though. I'd be curious what it would be if you asked every ref in the NFL, though.  

 

Well I wasn't even really aware that it was being questioned for possession.  They didn't seem to focus much on that at LOS.  Just kept showing the dudes knee for a while and we were all like No way That's short, then they showed stuff like the still that I included and we were all like Oh yeah it's on the line. 

 

But I didn't see until this afternoon, that it was moving.

 

But there is part of the rule, I'm pretty sure that allows for "movement' lol.   The hey here is clear and obvious.  It was uphled as a catch and probably would be upheld as an incompletion if the initial call swas incomplete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Well I wasn't even really aware that it was being questioned for possession.  They didn't seem to focus much on that at LOS.  Just kept showing the dudes knee for a while and we were all like No way That's short, then they showed stuff like the still that I included and we were all like Oh yeah it's on the line. 

 

But I didn't see until this afternoon, that it was moving.

 

But there is part of the rule, I'm pretty sure that allows for "movement' lol.   The hey here is clear and obvious.  It was uphled as a catch and probably would be upheld as an incompletion if the initial call swas incomplete.

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

 

Yes the rules do say about movement  The commentators were not focused on that as it relates to the catch/possession.  But it (the rules) also says that after control is established and after two feet or a body part are on the ground in play, "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. "  

 

And then in the notes it says

 

"1. Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control. [which is what you are talking about]

2.  If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds"

 

That's the so-called "process" of the catch.  He might have snagged it at the goal line, but I don't know how anyone can call what he did by the time the ball was above the line to the time the ball went behind the goal line a football move "or long enough to do so".  So I htink that's why they were looking at his knee.  He had caught the ball and maybe he didn't lose control of it, but by the time he "performed an 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)," by that time, he was down and the ball had not broken the plane.  And you can see that clear as day on the replay as well.  You can't say the catch was over the line, then apply the football move ((c) in the link) to the initial point of the catch.  Because the rules say AFTER (a) and (b) football move equals the end of the process of the catch, and you can see his knee on the ground and the ball behind the line.  That's what we were hearing on TV.  They weren't questioning possession or control.  Even though I think that's still debatable, that wasn't the biggest problem with this call after the review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...