WTF NFL?

[channtheman]

Why was Brady's first TD pass against the Chargers this past Sunday ruled a TD?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-air-and-ground-players-of-the-week/09000d5d822688e4/Week-2-FedEx-Air-Ground-nominees

Week 2: Fedex Air and Ground Nominees is the title of the video if it doesn't show up right away when you click on the link. It's the first highlight in that video.

For comparison here is Calvin Johnson's non TD week 1 last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZkVAoNTbWc&feature=related

[red]

yup, i brought up this same thing in one of the game thread. how does that count and the CJ and finley catch from earlier in the day not count

its insane, fans can't figure out the rules, players and coaches have no clue anymore, the refs don't know, and i'm sure the asshole that came out with the rules doesn't know it

[channtheman]

It's odd how the NFL Networks highlights of that game all begin AFTER that play has already occurred, as if they don't want to bring it up and question it. Luckily I could find it randomly thrown in this highlight clip. And you are exactly right. You know the rule is bad when no one knows what is or isn't a TD.

[mraynrand]

It's a judgment call - did the player go to the ground with possession or not. In the case of Johnson they ruled (wrongly, I think) that he let go before he was done going to the ground. In the case of the Brady TD, they ruled (wrongly, I think) that he had completed going to the ground before the ball was stripped out. It's up to the ref to determine whether the ball comes out before or after the process of going to the ground is complete.

[ThunderDan]

It's a judgment call - did the player go to the ground with possession or not. In the case of Johnson they ruled (wrongly, I think) that he let go before he was done going to the ground. In the case of the Brady TD, they ruled (wrongly, I think) that he had completed going to the ground before the ball was stripped out. It's up to the ref to determine whether the ball comes out before or after the process of going to the ground is complete.

I think the rule is pretty clear right now. If you go to the ground while scoring you have to maintain control of the ball until the play is completed. The refs sure as shit blew the call.

Now, I am not arguing that the proper rule is in effect. The CJ and Finley plays were TDs in my book.

[channtheman]

I'm with ThunderDan. I'm pretty sure that the rule states you must maintain possession all the way to the ground for it to be a TD. In this case, you can clearly see the ball pop out. I think they have (poorly) attempted to take the subjectivity (or judgment) out of the call by making the rule how it is. Regardless, if that play is a TD, than CJ's play was a TD and Finley's was a TD.

[red]

I think the rule is pretty clear right now. If you go to the ground while scoring you have to maintain control of the ball until the play is completed. The refs sure as shit blew the call.

Now, I am not arguing that the proper rule is in effect. The CJ and Finley plays were TDs in my book.

but when the hell is the play completed? 2 feet down with possession? does he then have to do a dance before the play is completed? when a player catches the ball and gets two feet down, then goes to the ground and gets touched by a defender, by rule his is down, the play should be dead at that point.

but not with these rules, you have to continue to hold onto the ball even though the play is technically over

a running back just has to break the plane with the ball, then its a TD and the play is over, even if a guy knocks the ball away after it breaks the goal line, its still a td. why is it so different for guys catching the ball?

its too fucking goofey

[mraynrand]

I'm with ThunderDan. I'm pretty sure that the rule states you must maintain possession all the way to the ground for it to be a TD. In this case, you can clearly see the ball pop out. I think they have (poorly) attempted to take the subjectivity (or judgment) out of the call by making the rule how it is. Regardless, if that play is a TD, than CJ's play was a TD and Finley's was a TD.

They didn't try to take the subjectivity out of it, but the ambiguity. I think the rule is generally less ambiguous but from time to time ends up looking absurd - because of the judgment of the ref.

[channtheman]

but when the hell is the play completed? 2 feet down with possession? does he then have to do a dance before the play is completed? when a player catches the ball and gets two feet down, then goes to the ground and gets touched by a defender, by rule his is down, the play should be dead at that point.

but not with these rules, you have to continue to hold onto the ball even though the play is technically over

a running back just has to break the plane with the ball, then its a TD and the play is over, even if a guy knocks the ball away after it breaks the goal line, its still a td. why is it so different for guys catching the ball?

its too fucking goofey

Maybe they should require the receiver to physically hand the ball to the ref after a TD for it to be a TD. Receiver catches a pass in endzone but spikes the ball? No TD. This rule would knock out celebrations and the subjectivity all at once!

[mraynrand]

a running back just has to break the plane with the ball, then its a TD and the play is over, even if a guy knocks the ball away after it breaks the goal line, its still a td. why is it so different for guys catching the ball?

Because the running back is already in possession of the ball. In the case of a receiver catching while going to the ground, he is in the process of establishing possession. To establish possession, he has to hold on through the process of going to the ground.

[channtheman]

They didn't try to take the subjectivity out of it, but the ambiguity. I think the rule is generally less ambiguous but from time to time ends up looking absurd - because of the judgment of the ref.

Gotcha, I see your point now. I actually would still say they completely failed with this rule. I never remember TD's and non TD's like we have now.

[mraynrand]

I like the ref to judge whether the guy has control and two feet down. Once he sees that, I'd like the play to be over - on the TD play.

[pbmax]

Except they ruled last year that the maintain control part does not apply if it is stripped out by the defender while receiver is on the ground.

See this video for the details: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...ule-be-changed

And I know, it still makes little sense.

[pbmax]

Because the running back is already in possession of the ball. In the case of a receiver catching while going to the ground, he is in the process of establishing possession. To establish possession, he has to hold on through the process of going to the ground.

Austin's TD for the Cowboys was like that, he caught it and gathered it in before the goal line then dived over. He then lost possession after the dive, but called correctly and stood as TD.

[Bossman641]

That looks like a non-TD to me.

If I understand the rule correctly, the receiver has to catch the ball and maintain possession while on the ground. To me, this is a case of the refs badly screwing up, rather than more ambiguity being added to what constitutes a TD catch (at least that's what I hope).