Greg Jennings

[pbmax]

Two examples of the rule not being invoked (correctly according to Supervisor of Officials)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/26/week-two-official-review-revisits-louis-murphy-rule/

And the first instance of the new call this year I think:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/18/pereira-discusses-murphy-non-touchdown-and-other-week-one-calls/

[The Leaper]

I agree with Max.

Anytime a receiver goes to the ground immediately following a catch (i.e. does not make a "football move" beforehand) the rule states that the receiver must maintain possession through the fall to the ground for the catch to stand.

Just getting 2 feet in does NOT mean a legal catch.

[ThunderDan]

-he completed two strides after catching the ball.
-he didn't need to go to the ground to complete the play. Two feet in stride complete the play..

If my memory serves, two strides in the field of play has not made for a catch in the field of play for quite some time. Establish control, don't let the ground cause you to lose control of the ball, blah blah blah all have been part of the catch/no catch equation for sometime. The only time two feet are involved is while you are going out of bounds. But that changed this year.

Now if you catch a ball going out of bounds, you must maintain control as you go to the ground. Several TD catches have been waived off on this rule change this year.

I have no doubt there were mitigating circumstances in each. In this case it would seem that Jennings took three rather than the customary two steps before going out of bounds. But so far, they have held their ground on this call. Jennings needed to maintain control after going to the ground OOB.

My issue is that it was the Bears player who knocked the ball out. GJ had complete control of the ball and was not going down to the ground. Second foot down, not going to the ground, ground did not causes the ball to come loose. TD

[gbgary]

i'll bet the league admits they made a mistake with that call.


as for jennings...he's fine and will be fine. he's the Packers number one and is treated as such by the other team. as finley gains importance in the offense gj won't be doubled as much and will make a bigger impact in games.

[SkinBasket]

I agree with Max.

Anytime a receiver goes to the ground immediately following a catch (i.e. does not make a "football move" beforehand) the rule states that the receiver must maintain possession through the fall to the ground for the catch to stand.

Just getting 2 feet in does NOT mean a legal catch.

He didn't "go to the ground" though, until after the ball was knocked loose, which was after the ball had been caught and the receiver had taken a full step with each foot in bounds.

New rule or no, I apparently have no fucking idea what a touchdown is anymore.

[Willard]

I agree with Max.

Anytime a receiver goes to the ground immediately following a catch (i.e. does not make a "football move" beforehand) the rule states that the receiver must maintain possession through the fall to the ground for the catch to stand.

Just getting 2 feet in does NOT mean a legal catch.

He didn't "go to the ground" though, until after the ball was knocked loose, which was after the ball had been caught and the receiver had taken a full step with each foot in bounds.

New rule or no, I apparently have no fucking idea what a touchdown is anymore.

Chief Ref will admit it this week: after further review -- Touchdown Packers.

[Scott Campbell]

Horrible call. I can understand them missing the call on the field, but there is absolutely no excuse for not getting it right on review. That crew should be reprimanded.

And I had Rodgers and Jennings going today in the first round of FF playoffs. I was ticked - until Chris Johnson went off for me.

[Guiness]

I don't understand the new rule.

If a receiver catches the ball, lands in bounds with two feet, then goes to the ground and the ball pops out, that's not a TD?

The ground can cause a fumble in the endzone?

Ok

[Patler]

That's the problem, Jennings did not go to the ground until after the ball was gone and he fell intor the guard in photographers' row. He did not lose the ball from hitting the ground when diving to make the catch. The ground really had nothing to do with it, because hitting the ground didn't come in to play until well out of the back of the end zone. The question is, was the catch complete before he had it dislodged and went out of the end zone?

Had this happened on the 20, the Bears would have thrown the flag arguing fumble if they recovered, and I think they would have been right.

But my two main points are these:
1. The ref's explanation did not make sense with how the play transpired. If he wanted to rule it incomplete, he should have said Jennings never had possesion, because hitting the ground was irrelevent.
2. More importantly, Jennings never should have let the ball get away from him.

[pbmax]

That's the problem, Jennings did not go to the ground until after the ball was gone and he fell intor the guard in photographers' row. He did not lose the ball from hitting the ground when diving to make the catch. The ground really had nothing to do with it, because hitting the ground didn't come in to play until well out of the back of the end zone. The question is, was the catch complete before he had it dislodged and went out of the end zone?

Had this happened on the 20, the Bears would have thrown the flag arguing fumble if they recovered, and I think they would have been right.

But my two main points are these:
1. The ref's explanation did not make sense with how the play transpired. If he wanted to rule it incomplete, he should have said Jennings never had possesion, because hitting the ground was irrelevent.
2. More importantly, Jennings never should have let the ball get away from him.

Gotcha. I must have missed the ball coming out before the ground/pit then. I saw one or two replays then got pulled away. If he hadn't hit the ground before the ball came out, then I am unsure how the new rule comes into play in this instance.

[ThunderDan]

That's the problem, Jennings did not go to the ground until after the ball was gone and he fell intor the guard in photographers' row. He did not lose the ball from hitting the ground when diving to make the catch. The ground really had nothing to do with it, because hitting the ground didn't come in to play until well out of the back of the end zone. The question is, was the catch complete before he had it dislodged and went out of the end zone?

Had this happened on the 20, the Bears would have thrown the flag arguing fumble if they recovered, and I think they would have been right.

But my two main points are these:
1. The ref's explanation did not make sense with how the play transpired. If he wanted to rule it incomplete, he should have said Jennings never had possesion, because hitting the ground was irrelevent.
2. More importantly, Jennings never should have let the ball get away from him.

Driver had possesion last week on his fumble. I would argue he had control for a much shorter time than GJ on that play.

[Merlin]

Re: Greg Jennings

As inconsistent this year as Crosby????

Watched the play and the replay over and over on the challenged ruling of the almost TD in the first quarter, Personally, I agree with BB. I have no idea how that was not a touchdown. There were surely 2, and maybe 3 solid foot placements on the turf after the catch and before the ball was knocked loose. Should have been a TD.

BUT......Jennings should have just held onto the dang thing and avoided all the controversy. An elite receiver would have held on. A perfect throw by Rodgers deserved more than that.

I am not 100% sure on the rule if he is in the end zone, but the rule any other time is that the receiver has to maintain possession going to the ground. It was definitely a good catch but there may be no end zone exception to that rule, I don't really know. My argument would be that he broke the plane of the goaline inbounds therefore even if he fumbled it, it doesn't matter, but the possession to the ground rule may supersede that.

[MJZiggy]

But he wasn't going down when he caught the ball. He caught it and took two steps--three before the ball came out. That was clear possession and once you gain possession in the end zone, it's a TD and anything that happens after is irrelevant.

[sharpe1027]

Re: Greg Jennings

There has to be some limit to the "possession to the ground rule." Otherwise a WR could take ten steps, be tackled, lose the ball, and it would still be incomplete. Three full steps should be enough.

[Merlin]

Without knowing if there is an exception in the end zone I can't say one way or the other, that is what the official ruled. I agree that he had possession with 3 steps and to me anything after he goes out of bounds doesn't matter because he broke the plane. But the official could have ruled he had possession in bounds with only 2 feet instead of the 3 steps and in that case he has to maintain possession to the ground out of bounds.

I am not arguing that it was a TD, I think it was. I am just trying to figure out what the official saw that none of us did.