Stupid NFL Rule - End Zone

[Fritz]

I can't stand the way the NFL has effed up the definition of what is a catch in the end zone. I'm sorry, but Shiancoe's end zone catch was a catch - he had possession, both hands, and the ground did not help him.

Plus, Buffalo had a CLEAR interception in the end zone against Baltimroe (anybody see it?) and the refs said it was not an interception.

So let me get this straight: A guy running into the end zone can cross the plane with the ball and then drop it and it's not a fumble, but a guy can catch a ball in the end zone but if he uses the ball to get up after the catch and it comes out, it's not a catch?

Stupid.

[mmmdk]

The Calvin catch is still strange to me; he put the ball down and everything looked ok to me even within new rules but his fingers moved the ball as he opened his hand and ran towards stands or was it teammates! Everything picture perfect exept for that roll by fingers. Ground did nada and refs forgot to freeze frame at the right moment.

The Viking TD yesterday was not a TD as the tip of football touched ground first and clearly moved during V's possession - and ground hence aided with control of ball. Clear cut case.

Calvin's "no TD" vs Bears was robbery and a stark misinterpretation of new rules.

[pbmax]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

[3irty1]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

[sheepshead]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

[ThunderDan]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

I saw that replay on ESPN and his hands were definately in a different position pre and post contact with the ground. An HD widescreen TV is such an awesome thing when watching football.

[Cheesehead Craig]

While I agree that logically it looks like a catch, the rules state that it wasn't. PB has it right that the definition is there to make it easy on the officials. Ball hit the ground so therefore it's not a catch per the rules.

It's like in court, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

[SkinBasket]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

[sheepshead]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

I agree with your post. Except it was a catch. In college, the old days of the NFL it would have been a catch. Just like the Detroit Chicago game. Its criminal to take those plays away from players no matter whom youre cheering for.

[pbmax]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

That was a bad game from the refs. Was it Scott Green? I thought he was the guy who did us in Arizona for the playoff game? Maybe he is still shook up from it?

Just checked, same guy. Here are the ref lineups:

2010 Vikes game: Referee:Green, Scott (19), Line Judge: Barnes, Tom (55), Head Linesman: Stabile, Tom (24), Field Judge: Prioleau, Dyrol (109)
Umpire: Stritesky, Bruce (102), Side Judge: Rose, Larry (128), Back Judge: Helverson, Scott (93)

Arz 2009 Playoff Game: Referee: Green, Scott (19), Line Judge: Symonette, Thomas (10), Head Linesman: Stabile, Tom (24), Field Judge: Cheek, Boris (41), Umpire: Hannah, Butch (40), Side Judge: Rose, Larry (128), Back Judge: Dyer, Lee (27)

[sharpe1027]

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

Not to mention Mathews getting smashed in the head/chin about five different times (that I saw). I guess at least they called that once.

[red]

honestly, when i saw the tip of the ball hit the ground i thought it was incomplete no matter if the ball moves or not

the shear fact that fans have no clue what is and isn't a catch, and the fact that the refs and coaches are just as clueless tells me that the NFL has made a complete cluster fuck out of the whole situation

[sharpe1027]

When you are running into the endzone, you already have possession. So breaking the plane is enough for me.

But the rules about what is a catch are non-sensical except from the point of view of the referee and the replay booth. Its a rule that makes no common sense, but is easy to officiate and replay. It helps the referees do their job, but it does not stand logically on its own.

As for Shiancoe, after the last replay of the night, I did see something that agreed with the decision. When he is going down, his hands are in one position on the ball, after he rolls over on the ground, his hands are located differently on the ball, meaning something (hands or ball) has changed position. But like Bretsky, 99/100 I think that gets called a catch. We'll see if the NFL sends out more info on it.

But I have not known what a catch is for two years.

I don't think they made it any easier to officiate, they just changed what the argument/decision is about. Instead of deciding whether the ball touched the ground, they need to decide whether the WR used the ground to aid in the catch. I don't see that as making it easier.

[MadScientist]

VS needed a hand under the ball. What he did is a textbook trap.

No way. That was a catch and a crap call. What else is the guy supposed to do. Im glad we got the call, but it was awful. As a football fan, how can you take plays like that away from players?

He's supposed to catch the football. Just because he tried really hard doesn't make it a catch.

I mentioned in the game thread that this was as poorly officiated a game as I remember seeing in a while, and not just one or two big blown calls. Having to go to replay on those two TD where feet weren't only out of bounds, but out by half a foot was ridiculous. Meanwhile they missed Q's lack of possession, interference on Jennings by ol' Frankie W on the INT, and then there were the fucking terrible spots throughout the game. If the NFL thinks Sunday night football is their headline game of the week, they need to make sure the officiating crew is up to the challenge of playing on national television too.

I agree with your post. Except it was a catch. In college, the old days of the NFL it would have been a catch. Just like the Detroit Chicago game. Its criminal to take those plays away from players no matter whom youre cheering for.

No, in the old days a ball that touched the ground at all it was incomplete, even if it did not move. They added the rule about the ball moving so that diving catches could be made. The tip of the ball hit, and hit hard enough for the ball to move in his hands, so no catch. It is a correct call and the rule is about as reasonable as it can be to eliminate traps.

I don't fault the refs for missing this in real time, but the out of bounds plays were inexcusable.

[Tarlam!]

honestly, when i saw the tip of the ball hit the ground i thought it was incomplete no matter if the ball moves or not

the shear fact that fans have no clue what is and isn't a catch, and the fact that the refs and coaches are just as clueless tells me that the NFL has made a complete cluster fuck out of the whole situation

I don't think they made it any easier to officiate, they just changed what the argument/decision is about. Instead of deciding whether the ball touched the ground, they need to decide whether the WR used the ground to aid in the catch. I don't see that as making it easier.

Agree totally. I acknowledge the goal of trying to make a catch call more objective, but the NFL really hasn't achieved that IMHO.