Ref's screwing us less

[mraynrand]

the nfl needs to make these rules crystal clear and not leave it to the refs "interpretation"

There will always be interpretation/judgment calls. The refs judged that Jennings was going to the ground. They were wrong twice. If you want perfection, you are not going to get it in a game involving humans.

[swede]

Bedard talked about it on WTMJ radio last night. He had heard the league's explanation.

If Jennings is not touched by the defensive player it is a TD.

If the defensive player touches the offensive player BEFORE the second foot is down the "going to ground" rule applies. At that point the offensive player MUST maintain possession...but for how long wasn't clear to me. Perhaps until contact with the ground and then again he may have to maintain possession until the line judge runs up and says, "One, Two, Three, Four...I declare a catch and score!"

But seriously, how many steps would the receiver have to carry the defensive back before possession could be affirmed? By this interpretation of the rule the receiver could catch the ball, be leaped upon by a D back before the second foot is down, carry the ball and D back for thirty-two yards, cross the goal line, have the ball hammered out before falling down out of bounds, and lose the touchdown because the "going to ground" rule applies.

Maybe, in this somewhat ridiculous yet entirely possible scenario, the officials would say, "The receiver scored the touchdown before losing the ball while going to the ground after going out of bounds so the ruling is: touchdown!"

But if they could say that then they should be able to say, "According to Patler's first law of gridiron ruleage, possession of the football in the end zone = touchdown. This law overrules all others. Green Bay is awarded the touchdown."

So, and I promise this is my last word on the matter, I think the league has successfully defended the call based on a logical application of a stupid, unnecessary, and problematic rule.

[Patler]

We should not confuse the leagues public explanation with what they really thought of the call. They admit officials mistakes only in the very high profile situations when they can't "explain it away". The Jennings play has received little or no national attention that I am aware of. Other than a few GB fans, no one was anxiously waiting for their explanation (other than maybe Brian Billick). The NFL is not about to generate the negative attention itself by waiving a flag and proclaiming; "Look, our officials screwed up."

It has been implied by many, including the Packers at times, that often the league very quietly agrees with the complaining team and admonishes the crew even while issuing an explanation to the public of why the decision went as it did. They don't always admit that, while the ruling was correct if the facts were as the ref explained, a basic fact was actually different. In short they say the decision was correct, but fail to acknowledge that the perception upon which it was based was wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Bedard talked about it on WTMJ radio last night. He had heard the league's explanation.

If Jennings is not touched by the defensive player it is a TD.

If the defensive player touches the offensive player BEFORE the second foot is down the "going to ground" rule applies. At that point the offensive player MUST maintain possession...but for how long wasn't clear to me. Perhaps until contact with the ground and then again he may have to maintain possession until the line judge runs up and says, "One, Two, Three, Four...I declare a catch and score!"

But seriously, how many steps would the receiver have to carry the defensive back before possession could be affirmed? By this interpretation of the rule the receiver could catch the ball, be leaped upon by a D back before the second foot is down, carry the ball and D back for thirty-two yards, cross the goal line, have the ball hammered out before falling down out of bounds, and lose the touchdown because the "going to ground" rule applies.

Maybe, in this somewhat ridiculous yet entirely possible scenario, the officials would say, "The receiver scored the touchdown before losing the ball while going to the ground after going out of bounds so the ruling is: touchdown!"

But if they could say that then they should be able to say, "According to Patler's first law of gridiron ruleage, possession of the football in the end zone = touchdown. This law overrules all others. Green Bay is awarded the touchdown."

So, and I promise this is my last word on the matter, I think the league has successfully defended the call based on a logical application of a stupid, unnecessary, and problematic rule.

So let me get this straight. A WR catches the ball 1 yard deep in the endzone with a defender in contact. The defender falls down. The WR continues through the back of the endzone taking 10 steps, does an endzone celebration where he falls to the ground and send the ball rolling. No touchdown.

BS ruling.

[RashanGary]

Makes complete sense to me. It's not a catch if you're falling and fail to maintain possession through the fall. Jennings was going down during the catch and failed to maintain possession of the ball. Becasue of this, Jennings never had possession, therefor never had possession in the endzone, therefor it was not a touchdown. Seems clear to me.

It was definitely in the grey area of "what defines falling to the ground during a catch" but as the rules stand, it's more than reasonable that the ref made that judgement.

And the refs are pretty good about admitting when they're dead wrong. It just so happens they stand behind judgement calls pretty strong and I agree with that. There is no way to make it perfect, sometimes there's some grey area. At some point you can't nitpick every call or non call. It's not black and white.

[sharpe1027]

Makes complete sense to me. It's not a catch if you're falling and fail to maintain possession through the fall. Jennings was going down during the catch and failed to maintain possession of the ball.

It was definitely in the grey area of "what defines falling to the ground during a catch" but as the rules stand, it's more than reasonable that the ref made that judgement.

And the refs are pretty good about admitting when they're dead wrong. It just so happens they stand behind judgement calls pretty strong and I agree with that. There is no way to make it perfect, sometimes there's some grey area. At some point you can't nitpick every call or non call. It's not black and white.

According to their explanation, "during the catch" occurs anytime a defender touches a WR before the second step. So, my hypothetical situation above is not a touchdown. Absurd. I think they left out an important part of the explanation on purpose because the rule wasn't meant to cover Jennings-type situations..

[RashanGary]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Bottom line, if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a ball and does not maintain possession through the fall, it's incomplete.

The only debate is whether Jennings was going to the ground in teh act of catching the ball and in taht case, I say ti's a subjective judgement call and an example of you disagreeing with the ref on shades of grey.

Not a bad call. And I like this rule. It's too easy to call everythign a catch if you just jump up, get two hands on it and then fall down, losing possession. I like the way this rule works, always liked it.

[Patler]

I would still be willing to bet that had it occurred outside the endzone, it would have been ruled a fumble, just like the Driver fumble a week ago. If it's a fumble at the 20 yard line, it should be a TD if everything happens in in the endzone. Jennings had the ball tucked away for two complete strides, and almost a third.

The feeble explanation that the hit occurred before the second foot hit the ground makes absolutely no sense. Does contact from the defender negate the first foot touch? Since when is there a requirement for two foot touches after contact?

I see a lot of smoke screening their actual review of this play. Way too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies for me to accept this one at face value.

Willingness to admit their mistakes? - Only for the high profile ones as I have said. A head coach got in some hot water a year or two ago for summarizing what the league told them, which contradicted the league's official public statement supporting a call. I suspect that stuff happens a lot, to avoid publicly undermining officials credibility with the fans.

[Patler]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Bottom line, if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a ball and does not maintain possession through the fall, it's incomplete.

The only debate is whether Jennings was going to the ground in teh act of catching the ball and in taht case, I say ti's a subjective judgement call and an example of you disagreeing with the ref on shades of grey.

Not a bad call. And I like this rule. It's too easy to call everythign a catch if you just jump up, get two hands on it and then fall down, losing possession. I like the way this rule works, always liked it.

I still dsiagree with the explanation based on what really occurred. The question is really, did he catch it before the ball came loose? Going to the ground was irrelevant, in my opinion. I think Billick had it right when he said there was no question of going to the ground while making the catch. The catch was complete while he was on his feet striding. Heck, he finished his third stride while upright, and the ball was sliding loose by then.

Everything occured before he went to the ground. He didn't loose it while going to the ground, he went down after losing it.

I see a cover-up. Don't fall for it JH!!

[sharpe1027]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Bottom line, if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a ball and does not maintain possession through the fall, it's incomplete.

The only debate is whether Jennings was going to the ground in teh act of catching the ball and in taht case, I say ti's a subjective judgement call and an example of you disagreeing with the ref on shades of grey.

Not a bad call. And I like this rule. It's too easy to call everythign a catch if you just jump up, get two hands on it and then fall down, losing possession. I like the way this rule works, always liked it.

No doubt there is a subjective component. The point we have been trying to get across is that three full steps in a fully-upright position is outside of any reasonable argument of "going to the ground."

The league's explanation was that if there is contact before two steps, then the WR must maintain possession to the ground. Well, by that explanation even if the WR takes ten steps after contact and only then goes down (maybe he's doing a lambeau leap), it could still be a fumble. Absurd.

[Patler]

Besides, he went to the ground well outside of the endzone. Since when does hitting out of bounds count for anything? If there is a question of regaining control, its not when he hit the ground, but when he crossed the endline of the endzone. Again, their explanation does not wash!

COVER-UP! COVER-UP! I demand a congressional investigation!

[ThunderDan]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Once again getting 3 feet on the ground before any other body part hits the ground is considered "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass"? To me that is running.

How many feet do I need?

This opens up all sorts of issues. If I am a DC of a team I tell all of my players to knock the opponent off their feet in the end zone. Late or not if the WR doesn't maintain its incomplete.

[Patler]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

"whether in the field of play or the end zone" It doesn't say anything about out of bounds. If that is their ruling, they should have explained it as needing to regain control before crossing the endline.

Regardless, I can't justify a ruling of an incomplete pass for Jennings and a fumble for Driver. If Jennings' was incomplete, so was Driver's. If Driver's was a fumble, Jennings' was a touchdown.

[swede]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Okay, thanks for actual rule.

Bedard seemed completely satisfied with the league's explanation last night, but the way he explained it doesn't jive with this rule. This rule seems to be in place to deal with the "ground can't cause a fumble" clause.

A ball carrier with possession is down when he contacts the ground and cannot lose possession even if the ball squirts away at the moment he hits the ground.

A receiver can't achieve possession in the air and then benefit from the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule.

I get why they'd need the "going to ground" rule now. But where oh where does it say that a defender touching a receiver takes away that receiver's right to establish possession by taking two steps with the ball under control?

My new take: the league could flipping care less and successfully obfuscated with a plausible collection of words that seemed to give some assurance that everything was okay and there was nothing to see here.

[Pugger]

Unless my memory is failing, didn't the ball come out AFTER Jennings made 2 or 3 steps and didn't Jennings hit the ground after he was past the back the end zone??? Man, I would really like to see a replay of that...