Ref's screwing us less

[bobblehead]

Although its getting more even, can anyone explain how Jennings DIDN'T have a TD on the play that was reviewed??

[RashanGary]

I thought it was a TD. He caught it, didn't fall for three steps, then fell.

If he was falling in the act of catching, I can see how it's upheld, but shit, how long do you have to hold it before it's a TD?

I see what the ref was thinking though. It did happen fast. Baltimore got shittier calls than that last week against us. Sometimes it's not perfect.

[mraynrand]

It was a TD. He wasn't falling in the act of catching the pass. He caught the pass, took two steps down and then had the ball knocked out as he was being tackled - after the catch. Had it not been in the Endzone, it would have been a catch and a fumble, just like Driver's fumble last week. They got the call wrong.

[pbmax]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

[mraynrand]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

[MichiganPackerFan]

The ball was ripped out post catch, post possession, post two-steps. He wasn't going to the ground until the defender hit him post catch. It was a bad call. If the defender can knock it out anytime after the catch and possession is established to nullify a catch, there are no more legitimate receiving TD's in the league. That official deserves to be snapped in the nuts with a wet towel.

[bobblehead]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

[RashanGary]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

[bobblehead]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

Judgement calls are NOT changeable and therefore this explanation isn't valid. Either it was a TD or not, if it was judgement we should not have been allowed to challenge it.

[swede]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

This, to me, is like the infamous "tuck" call when Woodson hit Brady, or the Palomalu interception. I'm thinking either the rules are operating at some insane level of complexity or the ref is simply insane.

If Jennings makes that play in front of the end zone by catching the ball, taking two steps in the field of play, breaking the plane, and THEN having the ball hammered out by a horse-collaring tackler it would have been a touchdown--yes?

I don't see how it's different at the back of the end zone.

And as for the judgement, isn't that what the replay is there to check? You either allow a challenge or you don't. You overturn on evidence or you don't. If this was an accurate application of a rule, as PBMax suggests, then I simply don't get the rule.

Catch, step, step, hammered AFTER he was out of bounds. Touchdown.

[mraynrand]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

Judgement calls are NOT changeable and therefore this explanation isn't valid. Either it was a TD or not, if it was judgement we should not have been allowed to challenge it.

Of course you can challenge it. The refs use their judgment when they say the receiver got two feet down in bounds too -and that can be challenged. All I was arguing was how the league will support the ref. If Mike Pereira talks about this on NFLN, he will undoubtedly say that the ref had determined that the receiver was going to the ground and that wasn't overturned on review. That's my bet. However, I maintain my original argument about the call itself.

[sheepshead]

That play was something. On the field of play it would have been a completion. In the endzone where the possession rules are somewhat more liberal, it was clearly a TD. Either Ditka or Stevie Wonder were in the booth at that point.

[mraynrand]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

This, to me, is like the infamous "tuck" call when Woodson hit Brady, or the Palomalu interception. I'm thinking either the rules are operating at some insane level of complexity or the ref is simply insane.

If Jennings makes that play in front of the end zone by catching the ball, taking two steps in the field of play, breaking the plane, and THEN having the ball hammered out by a horse-collaring tackler it would have been a touchdown--yes?

I don't see how it's different at the back of the end zone.

You're right about what happened. If you think about it, it was no more a fumble than when a receiver catches the ball takes two steps and tosses it to the ref. The key was that the ref decided that he was in the process of going to the ground while catching the pass. If he were catching while going to the ground, the call would have been correct. He was not, but the refs will argue that he was and the league will support them.

[gbgary]

The ball was ripped out post catch, post possession, post two-steps. He wasn't going to the ground until the defender hit him post catch. It was a bad call. If the defender can knock it out anytime after the catch and possession is established to nullify a catch, there are no more legitimate receiving TD's in the league. That official deserves to be snapped in the nuts with a wet towel.

this!! they review complete/incomplete all the time and reversals are made. this should have been reversed also. it's a very good thing it didn't matter in the end.

[mraynrand]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

He has to make a 'football move' for it to count as a catch/possession.