Stupid NFL Rule - End Zone

[mmmdk]

Get HD or be forever silent

[MichiganPackerFan]

Good post. But Minnesota never challenged the Quarless TD. Which is why it stood. If they challenged, I'm sure the call would have been reversed

This unfairness almost made it fair. We had to spend two challenges to get non-TD's reversed, MIN should have spent one.

[MichiganPackerFan]

My biggest issue was that they called Shiancoe's a TD and felt they had enough evidence to overturn that call. How many times have we seen evidence that refs say wasn't enough to overturn a call? You can question whether this was a TD or not, but to say there was clear evidence to overturn the call on the field, not in my opinion.

The clear evidence would be that the ball clearly touched the ground and his hold on it clearly shifted as that was happening. He didn't bobble it but he didn't have a tight enough grip on the ball for it to remain in the same position either. Look at the replay on nfl.com if you doubt that. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but that sounds to me like as good a definition of "maintaining control" as any.

His hands move, but I think anytime a receiver lands in that manner his hands are going to move. Question is whether the ball was secured or not. And I still don't see "clear evidence" that it wasn't. I would have completely understood if the ref didn't call it a catch in real time and would not have expected the replay to show evidence otherwise.

I would respectively say that if his hands slide on the ball at all, that means the ball isn't secure. If it was "secure" it wouldn't move.

[Tarlam!]

I would respectively say that if his hands slide on the ball at all, that means the ball isn't secure. If it was "secure" it wouldn't move.

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

[Zool]

I would respectively say that if his hands slide on the ball at all, that means the ball isn't secure. If it was "secure" it wouldn't move.

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

I guess I'm with MPF on this one. The ball is a good 6 inches outside his hands before it hits the ground. The ground clearly moves the ball as it hits. I guess the letter of the rule should be used. I just don't know what it is specifically.

[sharpe1027]

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

IDK, you can have the ball in your hands, yet clearly trap the ball on the ground to complete the catch and never have the ball bounce. I don't think that hypothetical situation is a catch.

[ThunderDan]

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

I didn't know a football was egg shaped!

[Tarlam!]

If the guy has possessiopn and it doesn't bounce out when it hits the ground, he caught it. Respectfully. The rule, the way it's now being defined is crap. I've played games with egg shaped balls and passing and catching. That, respectfully, was a catch.

IDK, you can have the ball in your hands, yet clearly trap the ball on the ground to complete the catch and never have the ball bounce. I don't think that hypothetical situation is a catch.

Yeah, but I think that argument supports he had total control. I don't think he trapped it, I think he kept possession despite a good amount of force hitting the ground. If he didn't the ball pops out.

Even the NFL concedes it was a catch.

[Bretsky]

Yep, I missed this one as well. JSO has Chilldress' fuller comment. He is naming the guy he spoke to, so it would seem unlikely he is embellishing.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105740748.html

1. The referee should be suspended for not knowing the rule
2. From now on when we piss and whine about referees and how we always get boned........as all I have to say is Shiancoe

Thanks for botching up the call for the good guys

You can say Shiancoe, but I will say Greg Jennings from last year. The scales eventually balance, but some calls are worse than others.

OK, you already have me defeated........what would Jennings from last year mean ?

When I think of Jennings from last year I think of that nightmarish throw that should have ended the game vs. AZ

[Bretsky]

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.

Totally agree. 40" HD and it sure looked like his hands slid down the ball when the tip hit the ground, which means it moved in his hands, which means trap which means no catch. At first I thought the call was complete shit, but after watching it again, they got it right.

Absolutely disagree......and I have HD

[Bretsky]

I kind of find joy in saying the refs f'cked the Vikings; nothing wrong with feeling like you are on the good end of the schtick

[sharpe1027]

Yeah, but I think that argument supports he had total control. I don't think he trapped it, I think he kept possession despite a good amount of force hitting the ground. If he didn't the ball pops out.

Even the NFL concedes it was a catch.

I think it was a catch too, but it is pretty clear nobody (even NFL head referees) really knows for sure what the rule is.

[Tarlam!]

...it is pretty clear nobody (even NFL head referees) really knows for sure what the rule is.

Yup. Sad.

[packerbacker1234]

Guys, they removed the rule a couple years back that the hands have to be under the ball when you go to the ground. If the catch is made in the air, and then you go to the ground, the only thing that must occur is one: Clear possession of the football prior to the contact with the ground

Check.

Secondly, when the ball hit the ground, did it cause any loss of control - this is the bobble rule we all know in maintaining a catch through ground contact. upon hitting the ground, the ball did not move. In the process of rolling over, he tucks the ball, causing the change of hand position. The actual contact did not move the football. That was made extremely clear in the replays. Most of the time, the Wr's hands are not strong enough, and thus in that position the ball clearly moves - but in the replay, the ball didn't budge an inch in his hands when it hit the turf.

So, thus, according to the rules as they presently, read, that is a catch. There was absolutely no loss of control in the process of making the catch, and the ruling on the field was a Touchdown. IT has to be inconclusive evidence to overturn it, and it was far from inconclusive regardless of the proper call.

The only way you can make that call is to determine Shianco did not have clear possesion of the ball prior to it making contact with the ground. While a judgement call, my judgement and eyes showed he had clear possession to me. That ball just doesn't move. I am even more shocked wathcing it not move as it slames into the turf, and then watching him tuck it as he rolls. Very shocked, but he clearly has some strong ass hands.

It's a call that went our way, and yes, made a difference int he game. Instead, score is tied and the vikings, if things still go roughly the same, are in FG range to win with a kicker who knows how to kick on our field better than anyone else in the NFL.

Not saying we couldn't have won the game, but it was an overturned call that, to me, lacked evidence, and fit within the spirit of the rule. I think the NFL either needs to start dumping hte judgement and clearly defining what the spirit of the rule actually is, or they need to be strict to waht the ruling is right now and explain it to the refs.

[mission]

I kind of find joy in saying the refs f'cked the Vikings; nothing wrong with feeling like you are on the good end of the schtick

I'm with ya. Actually thought it was a drop when I saw the replay just based on the ball point being so far out but I don't really know the exact interpretation of the rule.

Makes me feel good to know that maybe there isn't a conspiracy against the Packers all of the time.