was calling it a "hit on a defenseless receiver" He was clearly not defenseless, and lowered his head creating the helmet to helmet contact. However Demps is not blameless here. You can't lead with the crown of your helmet, I don't care where you are aiming.
Shockey caught the ball in the endzone, got absolutely hammered and lost the ball...and even that was called a TD...That play was even more questionable than tonight's call. I'm not even sure Shockey's feet touched the ground on that play, but yet, it was ruled a TD.
RE: I remember way back when, in Seattle (IIRC!)...
Shockey caught the ball in the endzone, got absolutely hammered and lost the ball...and even that was called a TD...That play was even more questionable than tonight's call. I'm not even sure Shockey's feet touched the ground on that play, but yet, it was ruled a TD.
I remember that play. As I recall, Shockey caught the ball, got drilled in the back while still in the air, and his feet dragged on the ground while he was jackknifing forward. He only lost the ball after he hit the ground.
presumably to brace for contact and fight for yardage, which caused the ugly sandwich hit. The inconsistency with which these penalties are being called is inexcusable. We have officials that don't even have a clear sight line on the play throwing flags simply because it's a hard hit and the ballcarrier stays on the ground. I'm all for player safety but it's still football and guys are still gonna get hit, completely within the rules, but really, really hard. You can't change that. But the way some games are being called, you'd think the officials want the DBs to play like it's practice, hit and wrap then let them go.
Carey agreed with the defenseless receiver call but
after the review and announcement and numerous replays, never seemed to be too bothered by the call. Neither of them in the booth acted like it was a mistake by the officials.
I have never been more sure a call was going to be reversed when it went to review.
Somewhat shocking it was upheld.
But as Sheed says, and as we were screaming at the TV moments later ... BALL DON'T LIE!
If the receiver took two steps, as Carey acknowledged, in order to complete the pass, then I thought by rule he was no longer a defenseless receiver. Also, I thought the Giants hit helmets with each other and not the receiver, although he clearly suffered a concussion.
On the Giants' TD, I didn't realize a receiver now must do three things: control the ball, get both feet down, and then make a 'football move'. I knew if going to the ground as part of the catch the receiver has to maintain control after hitting the ground, but I didn't know there was a third element when the receiver is standing in the endzone. I'll have to go back and look at my Rule Book.
Only has to break the plane then I don't quite understand how a catch and 2 feet down isn't a TD. Why the fuck do you have to make a football move in the end zone? That makes no sense at all.
What kills me is that a running back can reach the ball into the end zone or for that matter a wide receiver as well if they are being tackled at the goal line and they're body and feet never cross into the endzone and as long as the ball breaks the plane it is immediately signaled a touchdown.
On the replay Randle clearly, and I can't empahsize clearly enough, was in the end zone his feet came down in the endzone then was hit and the ball knocked out of his hands. I have never ever heard that explanation before of having to complete the action when in the endzone.
I remember a play I think it was last year where Cruz scored a touchdown and barely got the ball over the goal line and it was knocked loose. It was a bang bang play. It went to replay and the touchdown call was upheld. Remembering that play I was certain this would be called a touchdown. The more the NFL tweaks the rules the more they are hell bent on ruining the game.
after the review and announcement and numerous replays, never seemed to be too bothered by the call. Neither of them in the booth acted like it was a mistake by the officials.
I have never been more sure a call was going to be reversed when it went to review.
Somewhat shocking it was upheld.
But as Sheed says, and as we were screaming at the TV moments later ... BALL DON'T LIE!
I don't think Simms is/was going to say anything remotely controversial.
To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
I saw it as the ball being knocked loose clearly after, and not simultaneous to, Randle's feet being down.
To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
I saw it as the ball being knocked loose clearly after, and not simultaneous to, Randle's feet being down.
That is not how it is written in the 2013 rule book. There is additional language talking about "maintaining control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game."
I thought the "football move" element, and it's inconsistent application (i.e. a catch on the sidelines vs in play) was one of the dumbest rules in football, and that call just confirms it. Once Randle had the ball and two feet down, what "football move" should he have made? It's a fucking touchdown the instant the ball crosses the goal line otherwise!!
what kind of moves they expect players to make in the end zone. You catch the ball and get two feet down - possession. TD.
Funny thing is - if he got hit in the head, it probably would've been a TD and a 15 yard penalty tacked onto the kickoff.
The NFL is very inconsistent in their rulings because they have moved to the old "If it looks bad - it is a penalty" mode.
you don't actually have to make a football move, you just have to possess the ball long enough to have done so. that's why Carey said "it's a timing play"
I thought the "football move" element, and it's inconsistent application (i.e. a catch on the sidelines vs in play) was one of the dumbest rules in football, and that call just confirms it. Once Randle had the ball and two feet down, what "football move" should he have made? It's a fucking touchdown the instant the ball crosses the goal line otherwise!!
the sideline catch (and endline catch) has a specific rule to itself, so it is not inconsistent
1) defenseless receiver, had the ball for 2 steps and LOWERED HIS OWN HEAD while the defender was going for the mid section.
what happened to refs calling penalties on OFFENSIVE players for lowering their heads? alternatively what do they expect of the D? the only other thing he could have done was dive bomb his knees or try to hand tackle him like a bitch... just pathetic by the NFL now
2) the catch/non catch TD... the Shockey play everyone referring to and a handful of others... he was IN the endzone and 2 feet touched down... that is it.. TD no more need to be done... he wasn't "TACKLED" where he had to maintain control going all the way down to the ground like they have ruled before.
just an abysmal job by that and FUCK Mike Carey for being a NFL shill tool who is not doing the community any favors by being their new bitch.
so that he's comfortable calling out the game announcers when they say something incorrect.
The non-TD was really really close. The amount of time with the ball controlled necessary to constitute a catch is basically a judgment call. You're probably not going to see something like that overturned on review unless it's blatantly wrong, or one of the other elements of a catch are missing.
Merriweather made a pretty great play to knock it loose.
what kind of moves they expect players to make in the end zone. You catch the ball and get two feet down - possession. TD.
Funny thing is - if he got hit in the head, it probably would've been a TD and a 15 yard penalty tacked onto the kickoff.
The NFL is very inconsistent in their rulings because they have moved to the old "If it looks bad - it is a penalty" mode.
They want a "football move" which in today's game in the end zone would be some kind of ridiculous gyration or spiking the ball over the goal post. ;-)
On a more serious note this stems from the Megatron play from a couple years ago. It's bullshit. That was a TD. The NFL tries to be too cute with these rules and is just making things more difficult. If it looks like a TD it should be a TD. That was a TD.
before going to break after the Randle play, he said that it might be a TD, then when they came back on the air, he completely changed what he was saying once Carey chimed in.
If there is a timing aspect to the catch, that's BS because it leaves it up to interpretation and you are going to have errors. why not just say, two feet = a catch.
Let's face it, this all stems from the fact the refs fucked up (or a bad rule was in effect) on a calvin Johnson play that is a TD any day of the week in anyone's mind.
calling them Washington instead of the Skins all night? Was that one of the reasons the fans didn't want him as color commentator?
Actually he slipped at least once that I heard ... and most times there was the hesitating for a split second before Washington came out ... Hard to change years of saying one thing to another ...
Randle put the 2nd foot down and turned. Turning is a football move. Carey has been beyond bad and went from a guy I thought was a good ref to a guy who is abysmal about his job and a total shill for the officials.
Penalties for guys who get their bell rung are assures regardless is the way the NFL wants it due to the lawsuit. They don't care about anything else. So Demps gets screwed.
and the receiver got hurt. As Fatman said above, when any defender lowers their helmet and somebody else gets hurt, there will always be a call. That is not the rule but that is the way it will be called. You will no longer see receivers in the middle of the field get laid out and not have it called a penalty. The NFL does not want big hits and regardless of the technical wording of the rules, they will always call something on a hit like that, even though under the rules as written it was not a penalty.
What constitutes a TD is similar. The referees are calling what the play looks like, not what happened. I'm not sure how you define "time to make a football move" and I doubt the referees can either, but to them it was a bang-bang play and they called what they thought the saw. It doesn't help that the TD was putting the game away. If the giants had been down by 14 at that point in the game I bet on review they call that a TD. There is also an element of keeping games interesting that goes into calls, even if it is not fully intentional.
RE: The defenseless receiver call was because it was a vicious hit
What constitutes a TD is similar. The referees are calling what the play looks like, not what happened. I'm not sure how you define "time to make a football move" and I doubt the referees can either, but to them it was a bang-bang play and they called what they thought the saw. It doesn't help that the TD was putting the game away. If the giants had been down by 14 at that point in the game I bet on review they call that a TD. There is also an element of keeping games interesting that goes into calls, even if it is not fully intentional.
There's also an element of rewarding an impressive and amusing play. Knocking that ball out into the arms of another defender makes for entertaining football.
that in addition to catching the ball and getting two feet down that he also just about rotated his body 180 degree's to the opposite side from where he caught the ball. And just what is this long enough shit. Two feet...ball caught and he spun around just before the ball is knocked loose. No one makes a "football move" in the end zone so define this "not enough time" shit.
With the hit from Demps..I just don't know how you pull up. I have seen some hits now where the intent is to lower and go for the mid section of the body, but if the WR/TE lowers himself as well is should be a non call. It is just getting absurd.
I thought once a receiver catches the ball and "makes a football move" they become a runner and there should be no penalty. If the receiver didn't make the "football move" it should have been called an incomplete pass
I approached this in the other three and am glad the rule was posted
But here's the deal - if they called it a TD on the field, it would have stood.
The interception was never confirmed, the call stood.
And again, the rules are different when you establish control in the field of play vs endzone. But in all cases, you better finish the act of catching.
was calling it a "hit on a defenseless receiver" He was clearly not defenseless, and lowered his head creating the helmet to helmet contact. However Demps is not blameless here. You can't lead with the crown of your helmet, I don't care where you are aiming.
He did not lead with it. If you watch the play it was a perfect shoulder hit to the runners mid-section while wrapping him up. Demps head was in front of him and by the receiver lowering his head that was what created the hit. A defenders head will always be by where he was tackling, that was the receivers midsection
Although the Randle replay showed he had clear possession,
when it went to replay I thought there was little chance the refs would reverse a call giving the home team possession and a chance to stay in the game in what otherwise would have turned into a blowout.
The fans would have turned all their frustration on the officials, the ref had an out, and he took it.
And the ref had to know the league and the network would have his back, as the call was to the advantage of keeping viewership and the game competitive.
is this 'time to act' component. The 2013 Rules define a receiver in a defenseless posture as:
Quote:
A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or
has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending
contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
Let's assume the time to protect oneself is equivalent to the time needed to make 'a move common to the game' under the possession rule applied to Randle. If so, then either the Redskins' receiver completed the catch, had adequate time (say to duck his head) and thus was not defenseless, or he did not have sufficient time in which case the pass should be ruled incomplete as he failed to control the ball all the way to ground.
The only way the receiver both had time to make a football move but not time to protect himself is if the officials somehow parse these as two entirely different things. Maybe they do, but that just makes these rules even more subjective and bizarre.
is this 'time to act' component. The 2013 Rules define a receiver in a defenseless posture as:
Quote:
A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or
has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending
contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
Let's assume the time to protect oneself is equivalent to the time needed to make 'a move common to the game' under the possession rule applied to Randle. If so, then either the Redskins' receiver completed the catch, had adequate time (say to duck his head) and thus was not defenseless, or he did not have sufficient time in which case the pass should be ruled incomplete as he failed to control the ball all the way to ground.
The only way the receiver both had time to make a football move but not time to protect himself is if the officials somehow parse these as two entirely different things. Maybe they do, but that just makes these rules even more subjective and bizarre.
Sorry I can't follow your argument. But I do think Paul was not defenseless. I think Randle would have been but the hit on him was OK (although I'd like to see to confirm).
He held onto the ball for less time than Randle did in the endzone. Fells made the catch with nobody in sight and placed the ball on the ground immediately after his feet planted. I hope in the future that Fells TD won't be construed to be incomplete.
I remember when Calvin Johnson had his game winner taken away
Might be the dumbest rule in the rulebook. Isn't the act of getting on the field making a football move. If a guy catches a ball, gets both feet down and starts to turn what else does he need to do? Sidestep the defenders? And if the defender instead of hitting the ball hit him in the back they probably would have called hitting a defenseless receiver.
The TD to the TE Fells if you watch again, he catches doesn;t really take any steps and places the ball on the ground. Where is the "football move?"
To me, if a guy catches the ball once he feet touch it should be considered a catch as long as he has control.
So obviously a political penalty, on national tv with all the bad publicity the Znfl has been getting for ct.
Thank god the penalty proved not to have any impact on who won the game
On the INT, I'm sorry - he had control and 2 feet down. And it didn't look even remotely close.
At least football karma sorta paid us back. On the next series, Meriweather had an easy INT on the deep out to Cruz that he just dropped.
I remember that play. As I recall, Shockey caught the ball, got drilled in the back while still in the air, and his feet dragged on the ground while he was jackknifing forward. He only lost the ball after he hit the ground.
I have never been more sure a call was going to be reversed when it went to review.
Somewhat shocking it was upheld.
But as Sheed says, and as we were screaming at the TV moments later ... BALL DON'T LIE!
On the Giants' TD, I didn't realize a receiver now must do three things: control the ball, get both feet down, and then make a 'football move'. I knew if going to the ground as part of the catch the receiver has to maintain control after hitting the ground, but I didn't know there was a third element when the receiver is standing in the endzone. I'll have to go back and look at my Rule Book.
On the replay Randle clearly, and I can't empahsize clearly enough, was in the end zone his feet came down in the endzone then was hit and the ball knocked out of his hands. I have never ever heard that explanation before of having to complete the action when in the endzone.
I remember a play I think it was last year where Cruz scored a touchdown and barely got the ball over the goal line and it was knocked loose. It was a bang bang play. It went to replay and the touchdown call was upheld. Remembering that play I was certain this would be called a touchdown. The more the NFL tweaks the rules the more they are hell bent on ruining the game.
I have never been more sure a call was going to be reversed when it went to review.
Somewhat shocking it was upheld.
But as Sheed says, and as we were screaming at the TV moments later ... BALL DON'T LIE!
I don't think Simms is/was going to say anything remotely controversial.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
I saw it as the ball being knocked loose clearly after, and not simultaneous to, Randle's feet being down.
Quote:
To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
I saw it as the ball being knocked loose clearly after, and not simultaneous to, Randle's feet being down.
That is not how it is written in the 2013 rule book. There is additional language talking about "maintaining control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game."
Funny thing is - if he got hit in the head, it probably would've been a TD and a 15 yard penalty tacked onto the kickoff.
The NFL is very inconsistent in their rulings because they have moved to the old "If it looks bad - it is a penalty" mode.
Funny thing is - if he got hit in the head, it probably would've been a TD and a 15 yard penalty tacked onto the kickoff.
The NFL is very inconsistent in their rulings because they have moved to the old "If it looks bad - it is a penalty" mode.
you don't actually have to make a football move, you just have to possess the ball long enough to have done so. that's why Carey said "it's a timing play"
the sideline catch (and endline catch) has a specific rule to itself, so it is not inconsistent
1) defenseless receiver, had the ball for 2 steps and LOWERED HIS OWN HEAD while the defender was going for the mid section.
what happened to refs calling penalties on OFFENSIVE players for lowering their heads? alternatively what do they expect of the D? the only other thing he could have done was dive bomb his knees or try to hand tackle him like a bitch... just pathetic by the NFL now
2) the catch/non catch TD... the Shockey play everyone referring to and a handful of others... he was IN the endzone and 2 feet touched down... that is it.. TD no more need to be done... he wasn't "TACKLED" where he had to maintain control going all the way down to the ground like they have ruled before.
just an abysmal job by that and FUCK Mike Carey for being a NFL shill tool who is not doing the community any favors by being their new bitch.
those "refs" should be graded as low as possible
The non-TD was really really close. The amount of time with the ball controlled necessary to constitute a catch is basically a judgment call. You're probably not going to see something like that overturned on review unless it's blatantly wrong, or one of the other elements of a catch are missing.
Merriweather made a pretty great play to knock it loose.
Funny thing is - if he got hit in the head, it probably would've been a TD and a 15 yard penalty tacked onto the kickoff.
The NFL is very inconsistent in their rulings because they have moved to the old "If it looks bad - it is a penalty" mode.
They want a "football move" which in today's game in the end zone would be some kind of ridiculous gyration or spiking the ball over the goal post. ;-)
On a more serious note this stems from the Megatron play from a couple years ago. It's bullshit. That was a TD. The NFL tries to be too cute with these rules and is just making things more difficult. If it looks like a TD it should be a TD. That was a TD.
If there is a timing aspect to the catch, that's BS because it leaves it up to interpretation and you are going to have errors. why not just say, two feet = a catch.
Let's face it, this all stems from the fact the refs fucked up (or a bad rule was in effect) on a calvin Johnson play that is a TD any day of the week in anyone's mind.
Actually he slipped at least once that I heard ... and most times there was the hesitating for a split second before Washington came out ... Hard to change years of saying one thing to another ...
Penalties for guys who get their bell rung are assures regardless is the way the NFL wants it due to the lawsuit. They don't care about anything else. So Demps gets screwed.
RE: Anyone else notice Simms
In comment 11884608 Randy in CT said:
He says he is boycotting the word "Redskins". He was not successful.
as I have said above
football move is not required, but there needs to be control of the ball long enough to where a football move could have been made (what Carey said)
and the sideline catch is covered by a separate item in the rule book
I don't know - would have to see the play again. I'm just trying to answer your rules question.
Simms called the Washington all night
and us the GIANTS all night
that was truly the diss on Washington
2 steps and he lowered his head, not defenseless. These guys should get a D- minus grade.
Football Karma is a bitch though. Giants seem to get a turnover after every bad call.
Simms is a shill anymore
Simms is a shill anymore
football move is not required, just control long enough for a football move.
What constitutes a TD is similar. The referees are calling what the play looks like, not what happened. I'm not sure how you define "time to make a football move" and I doubt the referees can either, but to them it was a bang-bang play and they called what they thought the saw. It doesn't help that the TD was putting the game away. If the giants had been down by 14 at that point in the game I bet on review they call that a TD. There is also an element of keeping games interesting that goes into calls, even if it is not fully intentional.
There's also an element of rewarding an impressive and amusing play. Knocking that ball out into the arms of another defender makes for entertaining football.
With the hit from Demps..I just don't know how you pull up. I have seen some hits now where the intent is to lower and go for the mid section of the body, but if the WR/TE lowers himself as well is should be a non call. It is just getting absurd.
The interception was never confirmed, the call stood.
And again, the rules are different when you establish control in the field of play vs endzone. But in all cases, you better finish the act of catching.
He did not lead with it. If you watch the play it was a perfect shoulder hit to the runners mid-section while wrapping him up. Demps head was in front of him and by the receiver lowering his head that was what created the hit. A defenders head will always be by where he was tackling, that was the receivers midsection
The fans would have turned all their frustration on the officials, the ref had an out, and he took it.
And the ref had to know the league and the network would have his back, as the call was to the advantage of keeping viewership and the game competitive.
has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending
contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
Let's assume the time to protect oneself is equivalent to the time needed to make 'a move common to the game' under the possession rule applied to Randle. If so, then either the Redskins' receiver completed the catch, had adequate time (say to duck his head) and thus was not defenseless, or he did not have sufficient time in which case the pass should be ruled incomplete as he failed to control the ball all the way to ground.
The only way the receiver both had time to make a football move but not time to protect himself is if the officials somehow parse these as two entirely different things. Maybe they do, but that just makes these rules even more subjective and bizarre.
Quote:
A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or
has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending
contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
Let's assume the time to protect oneself is equivalent to the time needed to make 'a move common to the game' under the possession rule applied to Randle. If so, then either the Redskins' receiver completed the catch, had adequate time (say to duck his head) and thus was not defenseless, or he did not have sufficient time in which case the pass should be ruled incomplete as he failed to control the ball all the way to ground.
The only way the receiver both had time to make a football move but not time to protect himself is if the officials somehow parse these as two entirely different things. Maybe they do, but that just makes these rules even more subjective and bizarre.
Sorry I can't follow your argument. But I do think Paul was not defenseless. I think Randle would have been but the hit on him was OK (although I'd like to see to confirm).
The TD to the TE Fells if you watch again, he catches doesn;t really take any steps and places the ball on the ground. Where is the "football move?"
To me, if a guy catches the ball once he feet touch it should be considered a catch as long as he has control.