Week 15 Other Games

[mraynrand]

I thought the Packers were supposed to emulate the Seachickens. Or was it Dallas this year. ATL? Oh wait, MN? Oh hell, let me know, I can't keep up.

[denverYooper]

I thought the Packers were supposed to emulate the Seachickens. Or was it Dallas this year. ATL? Oh wait, MN? Oh hell, let me know, I can't keep up.

The Rams.

[ThunderDan]

The Rams.

Jacksonville Jags!

[Fosco33]

No, it was correctly ruled. The rule is going to the ground. Every ref has said the same thing. Your opinion doesn't count. Had he not been going to the ground during the catch, it would have been a TD. They could easily change the rule for goal line and end-zone. To say if the receiver has gained control of the ball in the end zone or breaking the plane, then a TD is rewarded and the play is over. That would get rid of the going to the ground silliness in the end zone at least.

Refs called a similar play a TD for the Steelers vs Bengals early in 2016.

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/Bolt/WATCH-Officials-give-Steelers-a-TD-on-similar-play-back-in-2016-112426756

If he was hit causing him to go to the ground - then I may agree as the rule is written today. But he clearly caught it and fell/dove without getting touched.

At very least not consistent in the officiating. At worst - a terribly over complicated rule.

If it quacks like a duck...

[mraynrand]

Refs called a similar play a TD for the Steelers vs Bengals earlier this year.

If he was hit causing him to go to the ground - then I may agree as the rule is written today. But he clearly caught it and fell/dove without getting touched.

At very least not consistent in the officiating. At worst - a terribly over complicated rule.

If it quacks like a duck...

I may be wrong but I thought it didn't matter about going to the ground - that it makes no difference whether you are hit or going on your own. If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall to the ground.

But I agree about changing the rule regardless of being hit: on TD plays, if you establish control of the ball in the end zone or establish control and it breaks the plane, that is, once the ball is in control in the end zone it's a TD and nothing after that should matter.

[mraynrand]

The Rams.

To do that, don't they have to get the #1 or #2 pick in the draft multiple years? How do they do that without sucking or trading with the Browns?

[mraynrand]

Jacksonville Jags!

Tom Coughlin for defensive coordinator! Now all they need is a dominant front four rushing the passer.

[denverYooper]

Tom Coughlin for defensive coordinator! Now all they need is a dominant front four rushing the passer.

TT didn't go after Calais Campbell when he had the chance!

[denverYooper]

To do that, don't they have to get the #1 or #2 pick in the draft multiple years? How do they do that without sucking or trading with the Browns?

It worked for the 49ers... until it didn't. Scoops produced a lot of articles for 2-3 years about how the 49ers were bigger, stronger, and faster than the Packers.

[hoosier]

It seemed obvious to me that it moved in his hand because and after it hit the ground.

It may seem that way to you but to overturn the call on the field there has to be irrefutable evidence. "Seems obvious" isn't irrefutable: the ball could have moved because his hand hit the ground.

[hoosier]

I may be wrong but I thought it didn't matter about going to the ground - that it makes no difference whether you are hit or going on your own. If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall to the ground.

But I agree about changing the rule regardless of being hit: on TD plays, if you establish control of the ball in the end zone or establish control and it breaks the plane, that is, once the ball is in control in the end zone it's a TD and nothing after that should matter.

That doesn't make any sense. Let's take an extreme case: guy catches the ball going to the ground on his back as he enters the endzone; he's cradling the ball in his chest, but it moves as his back hits the ground. The ball, though moving, never leaves his chest, which is pointed up to the sky, until he finally secures it. If the ball never hits the ground and the player never goes out of bounds, it cannot not be a catch.

[mraynrand]

It may seem that way to you but to overturn the call on the field there has to be irrefutable evidence. "Seems obvious" isn't irrefutable: the ball could have moved because his hand hit the ground.

OK, I see what you're saying. The refs thought it was irrefutable. The irony of course is that they generally hate to overturn their ruling on the field, so they kinda look like chumps twice over in this call, from your perspective (which a lot of people agree with).

[mraynrand]

That doesn't make any sense. Let's take an extreme case: guy catches the ball going to the ground on his back as he enters the endzone; he's cradling the ball in his chest, but it moves as his back hits the ground. The ball, though moving, never leaves his chest, which is pointed up to the sky, until he finally secures it. If the ball never hits the ground and the player never goes out of bounds, it cannot not be a catch.

I don't get your example - seems like a simple TD. All I'm saying is that if a player has control of the ball in the end zone it should be a TD. The refs would rule on the control, not on whether he lost control going to the ground. It's much like the rule with the runner stretching to score a goal. It doesn't matter if it gets knocked out after it crosses the goal, just has to have control and cross the goal.