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

[woodbuck27]

The more I looked at that play and with Brett Swain turning the ball upfield after what appeared as a catch. I beleved it was'in fact' a catch. A catch and a fumble. Then it got confusing as the announcers took their position on that play.

MM tossed the flag, so he obviously 'at the time', saw it as a catch and fumble and fumble recovery. Troy Aikman clearly said 'no catch' and I felt he was wrong. In any case it was one of those very close calls.

GO PACKERS!

[CaptainKickass]

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.

This was my understanding BEFORE last season. I think one of the refs stepped on his own dick - proverbially.

It was a bang bang play.

Ok - I don't recall ever hearing this particular nomenclature in reference to anything outside of trying to get laid, much less NFL football, prior to this season or maybe last season at best. Someone please enlighten us as to which fucking football genius coined the phrase "It's a bang-bang play" to help the referee's determine what is or isn't a catch? It sure smells like a Madden-ism to me, and if it indeed is a Madden-ism then we've all just become far more stupid as a species not to mention fans.

Suppose I say: "Hey the briefest apple achieves mutiny"
And you say: "I don't understand that phrase"
And the teacher says: "Well you should totally understand that. Here, I'll explain it. It's because it's a bang bang play. There now, run along!"

I'm not railing on you specifically packerbacker1234 - I'm just pissed that an "ism" like that exists and gets used where it's least helpful.

[Patler]

I didn't think it was a catch as it happened and I didn't think it was a catch watching the replay. He had it only for the briefest instant, and began losing it immediately on contact. Officials have ruled "incomplete" after much longer possessions than what Swain had. The call seemed consistent with the way rules are being interpreted now. I have no complaint at all with that one.

The call on Crabtree was wrong, but from one of the replay angles it sure looked like a facemask penalty had occurred. Crabtree's had went toward the facemask and the guys head instantly jerked downward. From that angle you couldn't see where Crabtree's hand actually was, but the movement of the guy's head sure looked like his facemask was grabbed. Then they showed another angle, and it was clear that Crabtree never had the facemask at all. It sure was a peculiar reaction of the other guy's head at just the wrong time. It was a wrong call, but I can understand why an official may have made the mistake.

The forward progress call set me off at the time, and even more so on the replay. The receiver clearly gave up the yards on his own, and was not forced backward by a defender.

But, as others have mentioned, the Packers got away with a few, too; including a hold by Crabtree I think, and a fairly blatant one by Clifton once when he hooked a guys arm.

[swede]

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.

This is absolutely my take. The only thing that shocked me was when they said the ruling was "confirned". Bullticky! The ruling STANDS, says swede, woulda been the proper call coming out of review.

[Patler]

This is absolutely my take. The only thing that shocked me was when they said the ruling was "confirned". Bullticky! The ruling STANDS, says swede, woulda been the proper call coming out of review.

I agreed with "confirmed".

[pbmax]

I thought the replay showed Swain bobbling the ball as he went down. Possibly before the hit, and before he tried to turn around.

Football move is no longer a part of making a catch, last I read.

[mmmdk]

I thought the replay showed Swain bobbling the ball as he went down. Possibly before the hit, and before he tried to turn around.

If he did bobble it then the legit football move is MOOT!

[Patler]

I wonder how many would be arguing that Swain's was a completed catch and a fumble if a Steeler had fallen on it instead of a Packer?

[Noodle]

What I liked was MM using a challenge there. I think this was the third 3-and-out in a row, and the D had been out on the field a LONG time. The challenge ended up eating way more time than a simple time out, and who knows, he might have got lucky. So even though he lost the challenge, this one was tactically a great call.

[gbgary]

I wonder how many would be arguing that Swain's was a completed catch and a fumble if a Steeler had fallen on it instead of a Packer?

it was clearly incomplete!

[sharpe1027]

Compared to the Jennings non-touchdown awhile back (where he took three steps before being even being touched and was then tackled out the back of the endzone), this is not even close to a completed catch. I don't agree with the rule, but I don't think it was a catch based upon how they have been applying it the past couple years.

[Bretsky]

I wonder how many would be arguing that Swain's was a completed catch and a fumble if a Steeler had fallen on it instead of a Packer?

I would........stop trying to change the topic.........lol

IF the ref did think it was a catch and fumble, could he have overturned it or not ? My contention is the whistle probably blew it on incomplete so he didn't have that option.

[Zool]

I would........stop trying to change the topic.........lol

IF the ref did think it was a catch and fumble, could he have overturned it or not ? My contention is the whistle probably blew it on incomplete so he didn't have that option.

I could be wrong, but I thought they did away with the inadvertent whistle rule last year?

[vince]

I think that's right Zool. Not sure if the ball can be advanced, but possession can change on a tackle even if the guy was whistled down.

[mission]

I wonder how many would be arguing that Swain's was a completed catch and a fumble if a Steeler had fallen on it instead of a Packer?

No one.