Ref's screwing us less

[RashanGary]

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.

I think you have the issue pretty much summed up.

I would have called it differently, but it did happen fast. I can see how you could say he was going down with the catch, but I disagree. In slow motion, I think you'd be more likely to agree with you but in super fast football motion, I can definitely see the judgment call going the other way. I disagree with the call, but I understand how and why it was made and I don't expect an apology by the league on it. This year and last year there have been some inexplicably horrible calls (first Viking game standing out). This game was a damn good called game, to the point where we're almost getting the refs in our pocket for a change in the last two weeks. Even this call, the worst of them was decent. I've seen way worse than this.

[RashanGary]

I remember us getting a fricking taunting (the only taunting I've seen in years) call for Chillar talking shit to AP after a tackle, then a few plays later, our guy got tackled 3 yards out of bounds and there was no call on the late hit.

Then the ticky tack call on Woodson in the endzone.

What made it stand out as particularly bad was the Vikings having like zero penalties all game and us having 10 or 15 of them. That game was just bull shit. Every ticky tack thing went against us and was never called on them. I couldn't believe it. For a change, the Bears were getting penalties called on them too. That's what really stands out to me, that teams just weren't getting penalties when they played us during certain games and we were getting a ton of them. It felt so blatant and obvious that the refs were either trying to drive home a point like Daunahey talks about in his book or following an order (more doubtful).

Whatever the case, the chip seems to be off the refs shoulders and we're taking advantage of it with wins. Let's just be respectful to them, stop complaining and hope this trend continues. Nothing good ever comes from complaining like little bitches and that starts with MM and trickles through the players. A person can't help but want to passive-aggresively get back at a bitch. Read that book by the NBA ref. It's exactly the type of shit they do.

[Pugger]

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.

But in the Jennings situation he didn't hit the ground or lose the ball until AFTER he was out of the back of the end zone.

I don't get it any more.

[gbgary]

I don't get it any more.

You sound like you've been married twenty years.

i think you mean 5 years.

[RashanGary]

refs said it was a good call. I understand it. It's a judgment call made during a very fast game.

[ThunderDan]

refs said it was a good call. I understand it. It's a judgment call made during a very fast game.

Then what the hell is instant replay and challenges for? To slow the game down and allow the refs to get the right call.

Once again my issue is he got a third foot down before going to the ground and the fumble was caused by the Bear defender not the ground.

Do you have a link to the NFL's explaination of the call saying it was good?

[Patler]

I agree with those who have said that on Drivers fumble last week he had possession even a shorter time than Jennings did. A fumble requires possession. Once possession occurs in the endzone, its a TD.

McCarthy said yesterday they would submit this play to the league for clarification.

[pbmax]

I agree with those who have said that on Drivers fumble last week he had possession even a shorter time than Jennings did. A fumble requires possession. Once possession occurs in the endzone, its a TD.

McCarthy said yesterday they would submit this play to the league for clarification.

Good, because no other site has this on their radar except locally. I haven't even seen it in the papers outside of the blogs on JSO or GBPG.

Our other hope for clarification is a program that runs on NFL Network called Official Review on Wednesdays. It'll be on the web by Thursday.

[RashanGary]

Pretty much, he caught the ball, got three steps in, but was going to the ground with the catch by the ref's subjective point of view. By not maintaining possession through his fall, the rule states it is an incomplete pass.

Based on the refs subjective view of what happened (falling to the ground with the catch), by rule, he made the right call.


Clearly there's some grey area. How quickly does a guy have to fall for it to be considered "falling to the ground during a catch"?

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

There have been some games taht I am certain something was going on with how bad the calls were. This was not even close. If anything, the last two games, we've gotten all the calls to go our way. Maybe they want a Favre vs Packer prime time matchup to boost ratings again because if anything, I'd say we've had the refs on our side with worse calls than this the last couple weeks. This one was close and understandable.

[Smidgeon]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

[ThunderDan]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

GJ 3rd foot hit the ground before going down to the ground. How many do you need? 4? 8? A Lambeau Leap with the ball?

[RashanGary]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

GJ 3rd foot hit the ground before going down to the ground. How many do you need? 4? 8? A Lambeau Leap with the ball?

The question isn't, "was he in bounds". The question is two part and has to do with whether or not he caught the ball at all by rule of a falling catch:

1. Was the pass catcher falling to the ground in the act of catching the ball and if so,
2. Did the pass catcher maintain possession through the fall

From the refs point of view, Jennings was catching the ball, but was falling as he was catching it so now the "falling while you catch" rule applied.

He did not maintain possession through the fall so by rule he never caught the ball.


Being it was in the endzone never entered into the equation because he'd have to first have possession of the ball. By rule of a falling catch, he never even had possession.

I disagree with it, but I see how it was made and it wasn't that bad IMO. Was he falling or wasn't he? It happened pretty fast. I understand one persons view differing from mine in something so close.

[ThunderDan]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

GJ 3rd foot hit the ground before going down to the ground. How many do you need? 4? 8? A Lambeau Leap with the ball?

The question isn't, "was he in bounds". The question is two part and has to do with whether or not he caught the ball at all by rule of a falling catch:

1. Was the pass catcher falling to the ground in the act of catching the ball and if so,
2. Did the pass catcher maintain possession through the fall

From the refs point of view, Jennings was catching the ball, but was falling as he was catching it so now the "falling while you catch" rule applied.

He did not maintain possession through the fall so by rule he never caught the ball.


Being it was in the endzone never entered into the equation because he'd have to first have possession of the ball. By rule of a falling catch, he never even had possession.

I disagree with it, but I see how it was made and it wasn't that bad IMO. Was he falling or wasn't he? It happened pretty fast. I understand one persons view differing from mine in something so close.

Once again, so 3 steps before going down is "in the process of going down"? How many steps do you need? 4? 6? That's my question to the NFL.

If I can get 3 steps on the ground (in bounds or out) that sure as hell is not "going to the ground."

[SkinBasket]

I disagree with it, but I see how it was made and it wasn't that bad IMO. Was he falling or wasn't he? It happened pretty fast. I understand one persons view differing from mine in something so close.

Not sure how you can classify it as "not bad" or even "close" for that matter. You say it happened real fast, but I'm pretty sure they slow it down in the replays, so that's no excuse. It was absolutely clear that he did not start "falling down" until after the ball was dislodged which was clearly after the receiver had demonstrated clear possession and taken two steps.

Blowing a call, then the replay, that costs a team a touchdown, is bad no matter what the circumstances. About as bad can get in a football game.

[red]

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

that can lead to some very shady things

a ref can pretty much throw a game and say later on he called the thing the way he saw it. the nfl will shrug their shoulders, and we'll all be screwed

there needs to be clear rules, and massive fines if the refs then don't follow those rules

and don't think the nfl refs are above throwing a game, just ask the nba