the receiver is on the 50 yard line. The ball bounces off his helmet and is caught by the other team. Result: Interception.
What if the receiver gets his arms around the ball and in a bang-bang play the ball is blasted out of his hands and caught by a defender? No reception, but still and interception. It's obvious.
So does anything change if the receiver is in the endzone rather than on the 50? NO. That's NO. It is not a completed pass until it is caught and it cannot be a TD until it is an actual completion. Location in the endzone does not change the rules for what qualifies as a completion, and the receiver has no possession until it is a completion.
Where some people get confused is that a ball carrier merely has to touch the pylon with the ball and it is an instant TD. That does not apply to passes. A completed pass requires a bundle or requirements which DO NOT become instantaneous because they take place in the endzone.
It should be simple - you get two feet down with possession = TD. Why they've added nuance to a rule that didn't need it is beyond me.
That's what the NFL does Fat Man
Simms was talking about a blow to the head, yet Demps led with his shoulder and the receiver lowered his helmet into him.....and then he didn't maintain possession, when going to the ground....the wording on these rules is too suggestive and open to interpretation by an individual referee...
If that call had cost us the game all the people that claim the call was correct would be hunting the ref down with torches and pitchforks.
- Paul is clearly injured; commercial break
- Return from 2 minute or so commercial break, refs announce they will review the play; commercial break
What the fuck?
But that was a catch 99.7% of the time, end zone or not.
The refs got it wrong.
If that call had cost us the game all the people that claim the call was correct would be hunting the ref down with torches and pitchforks.
unfortunately the NFL changed the rule (sometime between 2004 and 2013) to add the extra requirement of "maintaining control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game".
That is at least twice this season where players are letting loose balls go. Take the ball and let the refs sort the rest out later.
that's a good question - the diving catch (not involving the sideline).
however, the fact that Note 1 says that the football move is not required, but that the ball has to be "possessed long enough to perform any act common to the game". One of the acts is "advancing the ball" so I guess if you were rolling towards the end line it would be ok. But what if you were rolling towards the goal line (maybe that is 'advancing' too?) also. Anyway the rule book just sucks.
I do think TD's and in the field of play should be judged differently, but the TD should be clear.
What if a receiver catches the ball for a TD, but makes no move at all and is blasted in the back a second later and the ball comes out? Make it easy and you eliminate the useless interpretations.
The NFL got rid of the bobble rule and the push out rule which caused a lot of gray area. do the same here.
It was a blown call. It happens. Giants win 45-14. Probably would have been the same score, regardless, as we kick off instead of getting the INT.
That's what the league had in place when the rule was "possession, two feet". It was clear as day, with the only question being did the player have possession when the two feet hit the ground.
Now we're talking football moves and completing processes...if you take a step back the language is ridiculous.
It was a blown call. It happens. Giants win 45-14. Probably would have been the same score, regardless, as we kick off instead of getting the INT.
act common to the game is not required, only control of ball long enough to make such an act
So even though the argument can be made that he needed to make a move, or the time to make a move - it sure looked to me like he had both the time and did make enough of a move to be considered a catch.
Oh well - that seemed to anger the Giants, and they went out and got the ball back pronto and made things right.
Yeah, I saw that slight hip pivot too. Wasn't surprised they didn't overturn it based on that, but I felt it was enough to have been considered as completing the act.
Quote:
the league may not phrase things correctly/coherently, but you have to define what constitutes a catch. a catch is not art (you know it when you see it). It needs a definition that a multitude of officials can refer to. Otherwise, it's officials saying Is not, is too.
That's what the league had in place when the rule was "possession, two feet". It was clear as day, with the only question being did the player have possession when the two feet hit the ground.
Now we're talking football moves and completing processes...if you take a step back the language is ridiculous.
i think the "football move" stuff was a useful concept in the field of play for determining when the catch process was over and the a ball coming loose was a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. there has to be something to indicate that the catch is over and we've moved on to a fumble situation.
i don't see it as useful in the endzone unless the idea is to give the defender a chance to prevent a touchdown by dislodging the ball through an immediate hit
Quote:
He was not juggling the ball when it was knocked out. He had clear possession with both feet down in the end zone. No 'football move' is required. A pity call by the refs because the skins were getting blown out at home on national TV.
If that call had cost us the game all the people that claim the call was correct would be hunting the ref down with torches and pitchforks.
unfortunately the NFL changed the rule (sometime between 2004 and 2013) to add the extra requirement of "maintaining control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game".
I believe beginning to turn and celebrate meets that requirement.
i think the "football move" stuff was a useful concept in the field of play for determining when the catch process was over and the a ball coming loose was a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. there has to be something to indicate that the catch is over and we've moved on to a fumble situation.
i don't see it as useful in the endzone unless the idea is to give the defender a chance to prevent a touchdown by dislodging the ball through an immediate hit
The definition of a reception should be the same no where it occurs. If a play would be ruled incomplete on the 30 yard line, it should also be incomplete in the end zone.
Not really. DB's drop interceptions all the time. That's why they are not WR's.
In the field of play, a proviso over maintaining possession is much more relevant.
Quote:
i think the "football move" stuff was a useful concept in the field of play for determining when the catch process was over and the a ball coming loose was a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. there has to be something to indicate that the catch is over and we've moved on to a fumble situation.
i don't see it as useful in the endzone unless the idea is to give the defender a chance to prevent a touchdown by dislodging the ball through an immediate hit
The definition of a reception should be the same no where it occurs. If a play would be ruled incomplete on the 30 yard line, it should also be incomplete in the end zone.
The NFL agrees with you, so we have this football move language applying to possible touchdowns. But since in the end zone there is no need to advance the ball further, I wouldn't mind treating it as a special case.
Even if the player gets called for a late hit, the penalty is enforced on the kickoff, which just makes it easier for the kicker to kick the ball out of the endzone.
Sounds like defense can start hitting people in the endzone after they catch the ball.
Think of this: Had Randle spiked the ball in the end zone a split second before he was hit, it surely would have been a TD. He caught the ball, had 2 feet down, was being driven deeper into the end zone while holding the ball due to inertia, and then, and only then did the defender jar the ball loose.
In the end, like a few other plays, God made things right shortly thereafter.
Prince knocked the ball loose after Jennings had been trying to control it running towards the back of the end zone. Moron Jeff Triplette ruled it a TD.
I realize I answered my own question with that last sentence, but there's far too much ambiguity in the rule.
Also, how can Niles Paul make a football move after the catch and still be deemed a defenseless receiver. The way the announcers described that was ridiculous. The basically said he caught the ball, lowered his head to protect himself (which was the football move), then was down by contact before the ball came out. But then in the next breath they say it's a penalty for hitting the defenseless receiver. I'm confused, wasn't his football move defending himself?
We got the ball back a couple of plays later....
2) The personal foul on the Paul hit. Demps (or was it Bowman?) came in low BEFORE Paul lowered HIS head.
3) The roughing the QB on the Skins for a "blow to the head" on Eli. That lineman's finger barely grazed Eli's helmet
I have NEVER seen a ref with a stopwatch in his hand, after a guy makes a catch.....as we all know, rotor runout on a front disc is 0.002".....you can look it up easily.....so we all should know how many thousands of a second that a receiver should hold onto the ball after he makes that catch, before it is deemed controlled long enough....so can someone please look up the "spec" that tells us, how long, is long enough?
The problem with the rule is that it's a judgment call, when it doesn't have to be at all. The poor language in the rule book makes something that could be (and once was) black and white a judgment call.
1. Micro-burst of +40 mph wind comes out of no where on an otherwise calm day that turns a nice deep ball into a pick.
2. Throws 50+ yard bomb on a blown coverage that hits a pigeon and falls into the lagging CBs hands.
3. Inside post thrown where only the Tight End can get it that bounces off the tight ends hands, hits a freshly emerged ground hogs head, and bounces into the LBs hands.
maybe there should be no difference, but in the rule book, the two situations are treated differently.
I have NEVER seen a ref with a stopwatch in his hand, after a guy makes a catch.....as we all know, rotor runout on a front disc is 0.002".....you can look it up easily.....so we all should know how many thousands of a second that a receiver should hold onto the ball after he makes that catch, before it is deemed controlled long enough....so can someone please look up the "spec" that tells us, how long, is long enough?
in the old days, it was easier. If the ref determined with his eyes that one event took place after the other, it did.
If they appeared simltanous to him, it didn't.
now we have superslomo in which we are seeing events that happened in tenths of seconds.
2) The personal foul on the Paul hit. Demps (or was it Bowman?) came in low BEFORE Paul lowered HIS head.
3) The roughing the QB on the Skins for a "blow to the head" on Eli. That lineman's finger barely grazed Eli's helmet
Also on the strip towards the end of the first half the officials could easily have ruled that Paulsen's forward progress was stopped
Also, how can Niles Paul make a football move after the catch and still be deemed a defenseless receiver. The way the announcers described that was ridiculous. The basically said he caught the ball, lowered his head to protect himself (which was the football move), then was down by contact before the ball came out. But then in the next breath they say it's a penalty for hitting the defenseless receiver. I'm confused, wasn't his football move defending himself?
Agree with that, although I think that was a very hard call to make without slow motion replay (and you can't use the slow motion replay to decide on the penalty call).
Quote:
He caught the ball, two feet down and begun to turn. What more was needed?
He didn't make a "football move"
Eli got away with one that Merriweather dropped so the Randle one doesn't bother me THAT much.. but he should have had 5 TD passes. The pass was right where it needed to be.
Quote:
The two calls seemed to contradict each other. I don't know how you call the one a catch, but the other an interception.
Also, how can Niles Paul make a football move after the catch and still be deemed a defenseless receiver. The way the announcers described that was ridiculous. The basically said he caught the ball, lowered his head to protect himself (which was the football move), then was down by contact before the ball came out. But then in the next breath they say it's a penalty for hitting the defenseless receiver. I'm confused, wasn't his football move defending himself?
Agree with that, although I think that was a very hard call to make without slow motion replay (and you can't use the slow motion replay to decide on the penalty call).
Then make it reviewable, at least in cases like that when the ruling you ultimately make is a complete contradiction. You can't have clearly established possession enough for it to be a catch, while simultaneously being defenseless.
Then make it reviewable, at least in cases like that when the ruling you ultimately make is a complete contradiction. You can't have clearly established possession enough for it to be a catch, while simultaneously being defenseless.
The rule book sees no contradiction, and conversely, explicitly talks about a situation where a catch has been completed and the receiver is still defenseless. Defenseless player definition (2):
"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;"
Note that defenseless players can be hit, but there are restrictions involving use of the helment and contact with the upper body of the defenseless player.
(This doesn't mean I think that Niles Paul met the definition of a defenseless player.)