Controversial Ending to Thursday Night Game (video)

[TXMike]

Catch - No-Catch ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHbz2KKSQFE



 

[BC70]

 

[El Macman]

I like the ruling, but this just adds fuel to the fire that burns for the current catch-no catch rules and philosophies. It would not surprise me at all to see some highly placed folks refute this ruling. I hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[InsideTheStripes]

I've been part of a call just like this.  Possession while going down, across the goal line, ball lost at some point while the receiver was going to the ground...

Never again.


 

[boydmarq]

 

He clearly did not complete the catch.  Shouldn't have had to have been reviewed - should have gotten in right in real time.  Any reactions to the female white hat?

[TXMike]

She definitely got tested.  Had to be one of the most flaggy games I have seen in awhile (and I have only seen the 1st half of the game so far).  She did as well as most any R I have seen at that level.   May have taken a bit long with the enforcements but that could be attributed to the way things were repoted to her by the crew.

[TxSkyBolt]

All I know is that dude in the white hat sure has a high pitched squeeky voice!  And the announcer at the end calling the defender a "black" defender was a little racist, no?   

[zebra99]

All I know is that dude in the white hat sure has a high pitched squeeky voice!  And the announcer at the end calling the defender a "black" defender was a little racist, no?   

the defenders wore black uniforms

[Curious]

"The Process"!!!!!

What BS.  As a football fan and an official, I don't understand what the NFL and NCAA are thinking.  If this kid never fell to the ground it would be a TD.  Simply, he had possession in his opponents end zone.  Why after a couple of steps and then being hit is the catch not valid.  What if had taken five steps; ten steps....

If he's broken the plane of the goal line in possession - after touching the ground - why should contact negate the catch/TD?  I just don't get it.....

[mbyron]

Because the rule says a catch is firmly held, and by interpretation a firmly held ball remains held after the receiver goes to the ground.

[zebra99]

"The Process"!!!!!

What BS.  As a football fan and an official, I don't understand what the NFL and NCAA are thinking.  If this kid never fell to the ground it would be a TD.  Simply, he had possession in his opponents end zone.  Why after a couple of steps and then being hit is the catch not valid.  What if had taken five steps; ten steps....

If he's broken the plane of the goal line in possession - after touching the ground - why should contact negate the catch/TD?  I just don't get it.....

I beleive the issue isn't how many steps but the definition/application of "possession" - the youtube video is not nearly as clear as what IR was watching - the question is whether the receiver had firm control throughout the "process" of making the catch - there was some "massaging" to my eye but again the video isn't clear.  But to IR on the game it was much clearer than a youtube posting.

So - being hit while you're still trying to obtain firm control which causes the ball to come out is not a catch no matter how many steps you take.

You think he had possession and that's ok but the IR official with a better view, thought otherwise - that will happen again and again but it doesn't mean the rule/interpretation is faulty.

It means only that reasonable people will differ -  but just one has the responsibiity of making the tough decision and be accountable for it.

I also want to take exception to your hyperbole essentially calling BS on the the NFL and NCAA officiating decision makers - both organizations have dozens of high level experts in officiating with a lot more knowledge than you and I - seems to me you're more a fan than an official - but that's ok!  We need fans!

[Morningrise]

Correct outcome, should never have been ruled a TD. If you ask me, clips like these actually vindicate the philosophy. I'm happy that the game of football doesn't consider this a catch. I don't want it to.

If you're calling this a catch, then you're also calling it a fumble if the receiver falls on an opponent at the 50 instead of the ground itself in the EZ. I just don't see that getting called a fumble, ever.

Slow motion makes every bang-bang play look like a catch. Don't be fooled. Even a bat could look like a catch if you slow it down enough.

I actually like the catch-as-process interpretations. I like them an awful lot. A bang-bang play should not be a catch and a cheap fumble, it should be incomplete. Bringing the ground into the equation then shouldn't change anything - the same bang-bang play should still be incomplete. Bringing instant replay in should also not change anything - the replay official should follow the same philosophy as the field officials. And clearly the end zone shouldn't change anything either.

Just about everything out of the announcers' mouths was wrong. When fans get their rules knowledge from sources like those, THAT'S what undermines the philosophy.

[mbyron]

Correct outcome, should never have been ruled a TD. If you ask me, clips like these actually vindicate the philosophy. I'm happy that the game of football doesn't consider this a catch. I don't want it to.

It's not really a "philosophy," exactly, but simply a definition of 'catch'. Back in the day, it was easier to make a catch, in the sense that some plays were catches then that would not be catches now; now it's harder.

People who like defense often like the current definition. Folks who like offense often like the old definition. :shrug:

As long as officiating is consistent across games using a rule set, nobody really has grounds for complaint.

[TxSkyBolt]

the defenders wore black uniforms

No kiddin?

[TXMike]

Si senor....

[BankerRef]

I was flipping back and forth between this one and the NC State/Cincy game after I got home from my game last night.  You could have a bunch of video from this one to talk about if you wanted.  Just a few observations from the little bit I watched: there was a fumble forward out of bounds during a fake punt that was given the out of bounds spot (5 yards in advance of the fumble spot), the ball was snapped with an injured player still being escorted off the field (no umpire over the ball and no flag), and there was a questionable tripping call.  How many times have any of us actually seen or called tripping.  It is one of those that better be obvious to all if you call it.

[TXMike]

Yep, in just the 1st half alone there are numerous plays that will be posted for discussion.  Some great training material to be sure.  Although I hesitate to do anything that could lead to repeat of what this conference (I think it was this one??)  did a few years ago when they suspended a deep official because they claim the video replay showed something re a foot and the end line that he did not see the same way.  And the video was not even conclusive anyway!

[houstonjaguar]

Yep, in just the 1st half alone there are numerous plays that will be posted for discussion.  Some great training material to be sure.  Although I hesitate to do anything that could lead to repeat of what this conference (I think it was this one??)  did a few years ago when they suspended a deep official because they claim the video replay showed something re a foot and the end line that he did not see the same way.  And the video was not even conclusive anyway!

That conference was the SIAC (Division 2)

[TxSkyBolt]

Si senor....

Man oh man, none of you can recognize a joke when it hits you right between the eyes.  Didn't ya see the  after my post.  You ex-G-men do have a sense of humor, don't ya? 

Best regards,

Brad (at home on a Friday night for the first time in over 20 years  )

[Curious]

Correct outcome, should never have been ruled a TD. If you ask me, clips like these actually vindicate the philosophy. I'm happy that the game of football doesn't consider this a catch. I don't want it to.

If you're calling this a catch, then you're also calling it a fumble if the receiver falls on an opponent at the 50 instead of the ground itself in the EZ. I just don't see that getting called a fumble, ever.

I would buy all this IF a runner who dives over a pile of players at the goal line, breaks the plane, and has the ball knocked out of his hands - all before he retuns to the ground - is NOT awarded a TD.  The plane is the plane; and there ain't no plane at the 50 yard line...

[Osric Pureheart]

That runner has already established possession of the ball by running upright for several steps with it in his hands, which this pass reciever clearly has not done.

[TXMike]

Man oh man, none of you can recognize a joke when it hits you right between the eyes.  Didn't ya see the  after my post.  You ex-G-men do have a sense of humor, don't ya? 

Best regards,

Brad (at home on a Friday night for the first time in over 20 years  )

"We in the FBI do not have a sense of humor we are aware of Ma'am"

[TXMike]

I would buy all this IF a runner who dives over a pile of players at the goal line, breaks the plane, and has the ball knocked out of his hands - all before he retuns to the ground - is NOT awarded a TD.  The plane is the plane; and there ain't no plane at the 50 yard line...

And this is the same reason why the hit on this receiver was treated differently than the same hit on a "runner". On a "runner" this hit would NOT be a foul.  The receiver was judged to not yet be a "runner" so the hit was a foul and the loose ball was an incompletion.

[TxSkyBolt]

"We in the FBI do not have a sense of humor we are aware of Ma'am"

I was trying to find a clip of that scene from Men in Black, but couldn't.  One of the funniest lines Tommy Lee Jones delivered in that great movie.  Elvis didn't die, he just went home.


Best regards,

Brad

[TXMike]

Here ya go!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x1wf7jdawM