Jump to content

kgeorge78

The Pitts NE game - Horrible Call at the End

Recommended Posts

That call was as bad or worse than any call the Lions have been screwed on over the years....

The NFL is a disaster..  Made me feel better about the recent horrible calls we have been affected by.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is where the rule, as stated, starts to get even more confusing...

The rule, as I understand it (I'm certain no expert here, so take it with a grain of salt) is that if a receiver it going to the ground as he's catching the ball, then he needs to maintain control through the whole process of falling to the ground.  Seems simple enough, but of course it's never that simple.

The first question is: How long does he have to be "upright" before it's considered not falling to the ground?  For example, a receiver jumps and catches the ball and pretty clearly has control, his feet touch the ground, then he falls and drops the ball as he hit the ground.  Clearly incomplete, yes?

But what if there was 10 seconds between his feet touching the ground, and him falling?  

Or what about this: A receiver catches the ball with two feet on the ground, pivots to start running up the field but before he takes a full step he gets hit which knocks him down.  He falls to the ground with control all the way until he hits the ground, and the ball comes lose.  Is it a catch?  I dunno... I'd say yes because there was a "football move"... he pivoted to try and run up field.

To me, his is what the Pitts receiver did... he lunged to the EZ with control of the ball.  It's clearly being pulled in by the receiver, then clearly being extended away from the body.  This, to me, shows clear control and intent.  It isn't a case of impact with the ground making his arms go off in an odd direction... It isn't a case of the ball being juggled... To me I see a catch, control, and intent... that's a catch to me.

Final thought: If the receiver is ANYWHERE else on the field (with the possible exception of right near a 1st marker on 3rd or 4th down), does he make the lunge?  I'd say no.  I'd say he just wraps around the ball and calls it good.  To me this shows clear intent... clearly a "football move."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

I don't think the call was bad but rather the rule. I'm still not sure what a catch is. 

Yeah... I mean I get the intent of the rule: If a receiver is falling down they have to maintain control the whole way down.  It seems to make sense.  The problem is that I think the spirit of the rule was to not allow the circle type catches where a receiver makes a diving grab, drags his feet with just the finger tips on the ball, then hits the ground and the ball goes flying away.  Unfortunately the enforcement of the rule has caused us all to question everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, screwball said:

From the Pittsburgh paper.  Some videos on the call, and the consfustion over the last few seasons.  Lions are in this a couple of times.

Steelers' overturned touchdown adds to confusion over NFL's catch rule

Someone needs to start following the money.  The rules are grey enough that they can be manipulated either way.  I watch a good amount of football and I see calls made not made all the time.

Who stood to lose the most money if it was a TD?  Just because there have been great movies made about the mob lately does not mean they do not exist any longer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Well this is where the rule, as stated, starts to get even more confusing...

The rule, as I understand it (I'm certain no expert here, so take it with a grain of salt) is that if a receiver it going to the ground as he's catching the ball, then he needs to maintain control through the whole process of falling to the ground.  Seems simple enough, but of course it's never that simple.

The first question is: How long does he have to be "upright" before it's considered not falling to the ground?  For example, a receiver jumps and catches the ball and pretty clearly has control, his feet touch the ground, then he falls and drops the ball as he hit the ground.  Clearly incomplete, yes?

But what if there was 10 seconds between his feet touching the ground, and him falling?  

Or what about this: A receiver catches the ball with two feet on the ground, pivots to start running up the field but before he takes a full step he gets hit which knocks him down.  He falls to the ground with control all the way until he hits the ground, and the ball comes lose.  Is it a catch?  I dunno... I'd say yes because there was a "football move"... he pivoted to try and run up field.

To me, his is what the Pitts receiver did... he lunged to the EZ with control of the ball.  It's clearly being pulled in by the receiver, then clearly being extended away from the body.  This, to me, shows clear control and intent.  It isn't a case of impact with the ground making his arms go off in an odd direction... It isn't a case of the ball being juggled... To me I see a catch, control, and intent... that's a catch to me.

Final thought: If the receiver is ANYWHERE else on the field (with the possible exception of right near a 1st marker on 3rd or 4th down), does he make the lunge?  I'd say no.  I'd say he just wraps around the ball and calls it good.  To me this shows clear intent... clearly a "football move."

It sucks. Lunging for the end zone very well could have been the reason, but maybe if he runs a better route or Ben delivers the ball earlier it doesn’t matter. Lunging for the end zone is something you have to do when you aren’t quite there, and it adds some risk. 

It is harder to maintain control when your arms are stretched out. 

If you jump up and make a legit grab and bring it back to your body but you fall on your stomach and it pops out, it’s not a catch, even if you had clear control in the air enough to bring it back into your body. 

I don’t think the rule is bad. Just like in the Atlanta game, if Tate is another half yard forward the lions win. If the Steelers tight end is another half yard forward, he doesn’t have to lunge and he probably doesn’t lose control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Someone needs to start following the money.  The rules are grey enough that they can be manipulated either way.  I watch a good amount of football and I see calls made not made all the time.

Who stood to lose the most money if it was a TD?  Just because there have been great movies made about the mob lately does not mean they do not exist any longer.  

The thing that ticks me off the most is the damn Pats won.  I can't stand the Pats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, screwball said:

The thing that ticks me off the most is the damn Pats won.  I can't stand the Pats.

They seem to get the benefit of all the new rules that are dusted off from the rule book that are now being enforced.  They have been getting those calls going THEIR way for the past 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It initially looks like his left toe is still down as he’s catching it, but then I don’t see the left foot raise up yet I the definitely see the same foot lower and still not touch the ground as he’s falling. They must have decided it wasn’t down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...