Ref's screwing us less

[Packers4Ever]

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.

I saw exactly what JH saw, Greg caught it but he didn't fall until after
the 3rd step = TD

[swede]

Okay, mraynrand's last explanation started clearing it up. But now I'm wondering if the ref goes under the hood trying to get it right or trying to protect the call. Does his brother official talk to him on the field and mention the "going to the ground" rule? Does the official view the replay with the mindset that the player IS "going to the ground" and the replay is only checked for consistency with the "going to the ground" rule. Or does he have, if he wishes, the ability to reverse the judgement of his brother official on that issue and see the replay with fresh eyes as it were.

Anyway--great catch by Greg.

[red]

i thought it was a horrible call on the field, and even worse after the review

he has the ball, and takes three steps in bounds, while in total control of the ball

mike carey sucks as a ref. he's always been one of the absolute worst

[gbgary]

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.

two steps and nearly a third isn't a football move?

[sheepshead]

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.

Not in the end zone.

[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.

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.

Nope. Football move and two feet down (other than for in bounds) do not count for a catch anymore. Its gotten much more complex.

[Pugger]

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a letter from NY telling us the officials screwed up on that play. If I were MM I'd write or call the league office and get an answer. It won't change the play but it might help keep these inferior officiating crews out of post season games!

[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.

Not in the end zone.

In this case I wasn't talking about endzone and I wasn't talking about catching while going to the ground. Take the Driver fumble last week. That wasn't too complex. Two feet down and he made a football move and got stripped of the ball. Simple. Fumble. Jennings: was not going to the ground making his catch - two feet down and possession in the endzone: TD. It doesn't matter what happens after he has possession in the endzone if he isn't 'going to the ground during the catch' - he could get vaporized by a laser instantaneously after possession and two feet down and it's still a TD.

[sharpe1027]

Nope. Football move and two feet down (other than for in bounds) do not count for a catch anymore. Its gotten much more complex.

Maybe, but there has to be some line. Where is it? Once the whistle is blown? That's circular because the Ref shouldn't blow the whistle until the WR goes down to the turf, since there's not TD until then...

There has to be some point that the new rule does not apply. Where is it? Three steps should be enough.

[swede]

Three steps should be enough.

Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, Mister, gimme three steps to the door...

[Fritz]

The thing is, the referees were consistent later when they ruled that Cutler's 2nd-and-18 or 22 pass for a first down was incomplete. I thought it was the same play. To me, it looked like the Bears' receiver caught the ball, had possession, was tackled, and when he hit the ground the ball popped out.

I thought that was a catch. But they said no.

Honest to gosh, I think the NFL has made it almost impossible for a guy to make a catch. Cripes, a receiver makes the catch and some 190 pound guy is ripping at it while another 210 pound guy is smashing into the receiver, yet the guy is hanging on to the ball as he goes out of bounds - but if the referee sees so much as a little wriggle - less than you'd see on a flat woman's chest - it ain't a catch.

I don't get it any more.

[mraynrand]

I don't get it any more.

You sound like you've been married twenty years.

[Fritz]

19, if you add both my marriages together.

[swede]

SC has been married for about 60 years if you add all of his marriages together.

[mraynrand]

19, if you add both my marriages together.

Heading down the Scott Campbell path are you?