BRETT SWAIN'S """DROP""""

[Bretsky]

OK, I've watched that play over and over and this is how I see that play.

That was clearly clearly a catch. And then a fumble...........does everybody agree with that ???????????//



MM probably thought it should have been a catch and fumble when he threw the flag. The Packer recovered.


HOWEVER........since the dumb ass refs blew the whistle to call it incomplete..........on the review they had two options

1. Catch and down by contact
or
2. Incomplete


Since he was not down by contact..........even if they thought it should have been a catch and fumble.....they had to rule it incomplete since wth whistle was blown.


IS THAT RIGHT ??????????????????????????

[mission]

I still have no idea how that wasn't ruled a catch and fumble.

Was the whistle even blown? It looks more like they had to figure it out after the ball was "recovered".

[gbgary]

i've said all along i thought it was a catch. i'd like to hear the official version of what was said and done.

[Lurker64]

He was contacted, and then he went to the ground... so that means that nobody on earth understands what does and doesn't constitute a catch.

This is one of those rules that needs to be clarified in the offseason, desperately.

[mmmdk]

The refs can blow my whistle...that was a Packers catch/fumble/fumble recovery. I feel sorry for Brett.

[esoxx]

It depends if he made a football related move.

[Bretsky]

My view is if the ref blew the whistle before the fumble was recovered perhaps it is considered a dead ball...perhaps they could say Pit did not go for the fumble........

The announcers did a piss poor job analyzing that play and it was probably because they were clueless as well

[MJZiggy]

It depends if he made a football related move.

I thought him turning and taking a step constituted a football move. I thought it was catch and fumble too. I've seen them rule before that since it was a fumble and the whistle blew, that you could recover but there would be no forward progress. Unless the whistle blew before the fumble, then it was just a catch--though only a nitwit would blow a whistle with the receiver running with the ball.

[packerbacker1234]

Highly debatable. It was a bang bang play. Ball is thrown, gets hits player in gut and he quickly cradles it with right arm makes a slight turn, contact is made, ball starts to move.

he didn't even get completely turned up field before he got hit. Thus, it was most likely determined that

- He didn't make a football move prior to the hit
- He did not possess it longer than 1 second, MAYBE 2.


Could also be determined he was going ot the ground on the catch, and thus didn't maintain possession through the ground. Though that clearly isn't the case - he "caught it", began to turn, and immediatly was hit and with the ball coming out. I thought it was a catch but even I felt iffy on it. He just didn't possess the ball long enough for me to feel confident it was a catch and a fumble. The ref agreed.

[red]

i think the nfl nees to give us one big explanation for the whole game. there were a lot of horrible calls, and they all seemed to be on us and pretty suspect times

i almost hate to say it and act paranoid but it looked like the nfl wanted the steelers to win for some reason in that game

i am convinced a catch is just whatever the refs feel like calling on any particular play. fans, players coaches and refs have no clue what is or isn't a catch anymore

what the hell was up with the sanders catch in the first half? guy catches the ball a yard past the first down marker, then under his own power and free will runs 4 yards backyards and is tackled 2 yards short of the first down. they gave him a first where he caught it because of forward momentum. no fucking way

then there was the phantom facemask penalty on crabtree on the punt

it sure as hell looked like the screw job was in imo

[denverYooper]

i think the nfl nees to give us one big explanation for the whole game. there were a lot of horrible calls, and they all seemed to be on us and pretty suspect times

i almost hate to say it and act paranoid but it looked like the nfl wanted the steelers to win for some reason in that game

i am convinced a catch is just whatever the refs feel like calling on any particular play. fans, players coaches and refs have no clue what is or isn't a catch anymore

what the hell was up with the sanders catch in the first half? guy catches the ball a yard past the first down marker, then under his own power and free will runs 4 yards backyards and is tackled 2 yards short of the first down. they gave him a first where he caught it because of forward momentum. no fucking way

then there was the phantom facemask penalty on crabtree on the punt

it sure as hell looked like the screw job was in imo

They probably just wanted to keep it interesting.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I had no problem with the call. Brett needs to hang onto that ball if wants to stick around in the NFL. Unlike the four guys ahead of him, he has little playmaking ability.

[channtheman]

I thought it was well understood that in the process of going to the ground the receiver must maintain possession of the ball or it is incomplete. This play to me looks very much like the Atlanta play we challenged in the second half of that game. Did you guys think that was a catch in that game?

[Freak Out]

Looked like a drop to me.

[Smidgeon]

I thought it was well understood that in the process of going to the ground the receiver must maintain possession of the ball or it is incomplete. This play to me looks very much like the Atlanta play we challenged in the second half of that game. Did you guys think that was a catch in that game?

I don't like the rule, but I think they enforced it the way it's currently written.