Week 15 Other Games

[Fosco33]

No, it was correctly ruled. The rule is going to the ground. Every ref has said the same thing. Your opinion doesn't count. Had he not been going to the ground during the catch, it would have been a TD. They could easily change the rule for goal line and end-zone. To say if the receiver has gained control of the ball in the end zone or breaking the plane, then a TD is rewarded and the play is over. That would get rid of the going to the ground silliness in the end zone at least.

Refs called a similar play a TD for the Steelers vs Bengals early in 2016.

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh...2016-112426756

If he was hit causing him to go to the ground - then I may agree as the rule is written today. But he clearly caught it and fell/dove without getting touched.

At very least not consistent in the officiating. At worst - a terribly over complicated rule.

If it quacks like a duck...

[mraynrand]

Refs called a similar play a TD for the Steelers vs Bengals earlier this year.

If he was hit causing him to go to the ground - then I may agree as the rule is written today. But he clearly caught it and fell/dove without getting touched.

At very least not consistent in the officiating. At worst - a terribly over complicated rule.

If it quacks like a duck...

I may be wrong but I thought it didn't matter about going to the ground - that it makes no difference whether you are hit or going on your own. If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall to the ground.

But I agree about changing the rule regardless of being hit: on TD plays, if you establish control of the ball in the end zone or establish control and it breaks the plane, that is, once the ball is in control in the end zone it's a TD and nothing after that should matter.

[hoosier]

I may be wrong but I thought it didn't matter about going to the ground - that it makes no difference whether you are hit or going on your own. If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall to the ground.

But I agree about changing the rule regardless of being hit: on TD plays, if you establish control of the ball in the end zone or establish control and it breaks the plane, that is, once the ball is in control in the end zone it's a TD and nothing after that should matter.

That doesn't make any sense. Let's take an extreme case: guy catches the ball going to the ground on his back as he enters the endzone; he's cradling the ball in his chest, but it moves as his back hits the ground. The ball, though moving, never leaves his chest, which is pointed up to the sky, until he finally secures it. If the ball never hits the ground and the player never goes out of bounds, it cannot not be a catch.

[mraynrand]

That doesn't make any sense. Let's take an extreme case: guy catches the ball going to the ground on his back as he enters the endzone; he's cradling the ball in his chest, but it moves as his back hits the ground. The ball, though moving, never leaves his chest, which is pointed up to the sky, until he finally secures it. If the ball never hits the ground and the player never goes out of bounds, it cannot not be a catch.

I don't get your example - seems like a simple TD. All I'm saying is that if a player has control of the ball in the end zone it should be a TD. The refs would rule on the control, not on whether he lost control going to the ground. It's much like the rule with the runner stretching to score a goal. It doesn't matter if it gets knocked out after it crosses the goal, just has to have control and cross the goal.