http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000055...play-ruled-a-td

 

So two steps down, and if the next leg is going to a step, it's a catch. Um. OK

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000055...play-ruled-a-td

 

So two steps down, and if the next leg is going to a step, it's a catch. Um. OK

Sounds like BS to me

I honestly don't know when a catch is a catch any more in the NFL.

 

 

I honestly don't know when a catch is a catch any more in the NFL.

Does anyone anymore. Way to subjective like you said earlier

That guy just likes to make stuff as he goes, like the actual officials on the field. It wasn't a catch. Sorry.

I liked it the old way, 2 feet down with clean possession inbounds and it was a catch, everything after that was not under interpretation. Was their intent, did he make a football move, did he make the catch through to the ground?

 

However, you are right, I have no freaking clue what a catch is anymore. It seems like that is now a completely subjective call by the officials.

The part that gets me is that the call was argumentative at best. So, how do you go from that to conclusive for a reversal? IMO - the entire was shabbilly officiated and that crew should be reviewed by the home office.

Get in line... It's as long as a Disney ride on a peak Saturday.

 

I honestly don't know when a catch is a catch any more in the NFL.

 

Exactly...

 

And wasn't there a huge hold non-call on McPhee on the long pass to Calvin in OT?

 

The part that gets me is that the call was argumentative at best. So, how do you go from that to conclusive for a reversal? IMO - the entire was shabbilly officiated and that crew should be reviewed by the home office.

 

Exactly...

 

And wasn't there a huge hold non-call on McPhee on the long pass to Calvin in OT?

 

Yep there was a blatant hold that gave Stafford time to heave the ball and CJ time to push off to make the catch. Also irritated on the lions's scoring drive at the end of regulation where a ref cleared out the defenders for the RB to make a huge run. Also the Roughing that gave Detroit a fresh set of downs at the 4 instead of 4th down from the 20 was bogus too. It was incidental at most. Ref saw stafford fall and a bears player at his feet and threw the flag. How many times do we watch Cutler get hit or driven down well after a throw and no call. In OT the Bennett catch that was a first down gets reviewed and changed to a 4th down. It should have been a 14 point Bears lead on their "game tying" TD. By the rule a contested catch in the end zone requires the receiver to maintain possession. Tate had the ball for a split second before it's ripped out and then picked off. On a play that is that close they should stick with what's ruled on the field but no… Give detroit the TD. If Tate catches it and it's not contested then no question it's a TD but it is contested and it's immediately ripped out before he can make a football move then it's not a completion.

 

That said we could have done more to win this game. Up 7 with 2:30 or so left knowing they have all three timeouts you need to be somewhat aggressive and force them to use their timeouts. Till you can melt the clock. Three straight run calls when we couldn't run all day was not smart IMO A couple first downs on that drive and we're talking about a Bears win. Then in Overtime we continued to run the ball on early downs forcing us into 3rd and long. We had what 3 posessions in OT and could not get into FG range. Even with all the bad officiating we could have won this game.

I'll just add that Detroit's group of WR's are the biggest bunch of showboaters I can recall.

 

The call on the field should've stood because there was absolutely NO compelling evidence to overturn it.

I'll just add that Detroit's group of WR's are the biggest bunch of showboaters I can recall.

 

The call on the field should've stood because there was absolutely NO compelling evidence to overturn it.

Agreed In super slow mo he holds the ball, but he never gets more than one foot down before the ball comes out. Officiating is going backwards, and has been since their strike

years back.

Not a single official called it a TD, just look at the views that both officials on the sideline had:

 

That guy has a clear view of the play right down the goal line and never signals a TD. There is another official with the same view from the close side of the field.

NFL Rule on player possession:

 

ARTICLE 7. PLAYER POSSESSION

Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.

 

Item 2. Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball until he has clearly become a runner. A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

 

Someone please tell me how they could overturn that play with this wording of the rule? Tate only had one foot on the ground and was not across the plane of the end zone when Fuller had his hand on the ball (not COMPLETE CONTROL). Then as you can see in the 4th frame the ball is already coming out, and becomes even more clearly visible from frames 5-8. So at what point could Tate avoid or ward off impending contact? Also, the same rule applies in the field of play and end zone (which I did not know). That actually makes it even worse. If this happens in the field of play it is an INT, but because they say the play stopped once Tate had 2 feet down is complete garbage.

 

Check out the pic below (massive picture alert):

NFL Rule on player possession:

 

ARTICLE 7. PLAYER POSSESSION

Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.

 

Item 2. Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball until he has clearly become a runner. A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

 

Someone please tell me how they could overturn that play with this wording of the rule? Tate only had one foot on the ground and was not across the plane of the end zone when Fuller had his hand on the ball (not COMPLETE CONTROL). Then as you can see in the 4th frame the ball is already coming out, and becomes even more clearly visible from frames 5-8. So at what point could Tate avoid or ward off impending contact? Also, the same rule applies in the field of play and end zone (which I did not know). That actually makes it even worse. If this happens in the field of play it is an INT, but because they say the play stopped once Tate had 2 feet down is complete garbage.

 

Check out the pic below (massive picture alert):

 

I certainly don't believe he "clearly" became the runner before the ball came out. A catch is confusing in the NFL, but at least it's not the one where we have to determine whether the ground caused the incompletion.

 

The breakdown of pictures is nice. But the problem is that it supports what Blandino is saying. He's basically saying two feet down then taking a step.

 

I still think they got the replay wrong.

I certainly don't believe he "clearly" became the runner before the ball came out. A catch is confusing in the NFL, but at least it's not the one where we have to determine whether the ground caused the incompletion.

 

The breakdown of pictures is nice. But the problem is that it supports what Blandino is saying. He's basically saying two feet down then taking a step.

 

I still think they got the replay wrong.

My problem is with the "complete control" statement. Fuller clearly has his hand on the ball when only one foot is on the ground and before the end zone, so Tate would have to run out of the tackle or go to the ground with full control to make it a TD catch. He did neither. Obviously the frame by frame can't capture the movement, but control is not maintained until he would be defined as a runner at frame #6. Two feet doesn't equal runner, otherwise Royal's catch and fumble would have stood as a catch and fumble.