for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Eli's interception. Just pretend to a moment that

Marty in Albany : 9/26/2014 8:27 am
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.
On and to the point.  
Montreal Man : 9/26/2014 8:28 am : link
As usual.
...  
TICSUAP : 9/26/2014 8:28 am : link
He caught the ball, two feet down and begun to turn. What more was needed?
Should have added: The ball carrier already has possession  
Marty in Albany : 9/26/2014 8:29 am : link
but the receiver only gets possession if there is a completed pass.
To me it didn't look bang bang  
JOrthman : 9/26/2014 8:29 am : link
.
Be caught the ball and had 2 feet down.  
Peter in Atlanta : 9/26/2014 8:30 am : link
In the endzone, that's the end of the play. On the 50, it isn't the end of the play. BIG difference.
RE: ...  
arcarsenal : 9/26/2014 8:30 am : link
In comment 11884717 TICSUAP said:
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.
Be = He  
Peter in Atlanta : 9/26/2014 8:31 am : link
.
What's a football move  
Jolly Blue Giant : 9/26/2014 8:32 am : link
In the end zone? A dance?
Marty, what about a fade to the corner of the end zone,  
Clearwater Joe : 9/26/2014 8:34 am : link
receiver goes up, taps his toes in bounds, and falls out of bounds? Is his act of falling a football move?
Had possession  
Fred-in-Florida : 9/26/2014 8:35 am : link
in the endzone! Two feet down and he broke the plain! Then the ball was knocked out!
I dont care if they called it correctly  
Walt in MD : 9/26/2014 8:35 am : link
but if that's a good ruling, the rule needs to be changed. The play is over the second he gets the second foot down with control of the ball. What happens if a RB dives over the top and extends the ball over the line, then fumbles? The second the ball is over the line, it's a TD and the play is over. I don't see why this should be any different.
Perfect example...  
rptl530 : 9/26/2014 8:36 am : link
of the NFL trying to keep people in front of their TV's.

That was a fucking joke of a call.
Sorry marty, but he caught the ball cleanly  
Victor in CT : 9/26/2014 8:36 am : link
in the end zone and put both feet down BEFORE the hit. That, my friend, is a touchdown.
I don't think that is true  
Peter from CT : 9/26/2014 8:36 am : link
Once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line and it is cradled (not bobbled) in the receivers hands and his feet are in bounds, its a touchdown. The play is over.

The analogy to the fifty yard line is flawed because the play is not over at the fifty yard line once the receiver has possession until he goes down.

I think last night was a very close call. Obviously, based on the post game interview, the HC agrees with the fans and the QB who thought it was a TD.
i have made the same point on two other threads, but  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 8:36 am : link
here goes.

football move is not required, just control long enough for a football move.

sideline catch is a separate item in the rule book
He didn't control it long enough for a football move.  
arcarsenal : 9/26/2014 8:38 am : link
I thought it should have been a TD but I understood why it wasn't. The ball came out right after he landed. He didn't move in any direction with the football and couldn't have because the ball was out right as his feet hit the turf. They should change that rule, though.
Putting the priviso..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 9/26/2014 8:39 am : link
that you need "time" to make a football move is adding unneeded interpretation.

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.
RE: Marty, what about a fade to the corner of the end zone,  
Dan in WNY : 9/26/2014 8:39 am : link
In comment 11884744 Clearwater Joe said:
Quote:
receiver goes up, taps his toes in bounds, and falls out of bounds? Is his act of falling a football move?


That's my predicament with the call as well. He caught the ball and had 2 feet down. He clearly had full possession of the ball when his 2 feet were down. I dont see how that's any different then when we see these guys make toe tapping catches in the back of the endzone.
I have a real tough time  
That Said : 9/26/2014 8:40 am : link
classifying that one as an interception. I know it'll read that way on the stat sheet, but shit.
.  
fkap : 9/26/2014 8:44 am : link
you need to make a football move for it to be a catch. Why can you do a toe tap on the sideline/endzone and go out of bounds, and have it be a catch? There's no football move on the field of play. I can see if the receiver falls down, the act of falling can be a football move, and he still has to maintain position through the fall. But just as often, though, a player remains upright and momentum takes him out without a football move on the field of play.

We got away with one where we stood up the redskin, forward progress clearly stopped, and then we ripped the ball out. there was a sloooooow whistle which kept the ball in play. Kind of balances out that the endzone play was a clear possession.
RE: .  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 8:45 am : link
In comment 11884782 fkap said:
Quote:
you need to make a football move for it to be a catch. Why can you do a toe tap on the sideline/endzone and go out of bounds, and have it be a catch? There's no football move on the field of play. I can see if the receiver falls down, the act of falling can be a football move, and he still has to maintain position through the fall. But just as often, though, a player remains upright and momentum takes him out without a football move on the field of play.

We got away with one where we stood up the redskin, forward progress clearly stopped, and then we ripped the ball out. there was a sloooooow whistle which kept the ball in play. Kind of balances out that the endzone play was a clear possession.


I'll repeat again:

football move is not required, just control long enough for a football move.

sideline catch is a separate item in the rule book




lol  
Antdog23 : 9/26/2014 8:45 am : link
Yes he had both hands on the ball. Yes he had both feet down.  
Jim in Fairfax : 9/26/2014 8:46 am : link
But by definition that does not equal a reception. As noted, you have to have possession for long enough to make a move with it or it's not a completion.

I'm not saying the call was right. He had possession for a split second. It's a judgement call as to whether it was long enough. I doubt replay would have overturned it had the call on the field gone the other way.
That call seems completely subjective.  
Ten Ton Hammer : 9/26/2014 8:46 am : link
I bet a different collection of refs give that a TD.
RE: .  
Peter from CT : 9/26/2014 8:46 am : link
In comment 11884782 fkap said:
Quote:


We got away with one where we stood up the redskin, forward progress clearly stopped, and then we ripped the ball out. there was a sloooooow whistle which kept the ball in play. Kind of balances out that the endzone play was a clear possession.
I think it was a slow whistle in slow motion but not necessarily at game speed.
From NFL Rules  
sphinx : 9/26/2014 8:47 am : link
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 3

In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Why would Randall make a "football move"?  
Peter from CT : 9/26/2014 8:48 am : link
He is in the end zone with the ball in his hands. What is he supposed to do? He's not trying to gain additional yardage....
RE: From NFL Rules  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 8:49 am : link
In comment 11884790 sphinx said:
Quote:
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 3

In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.


it says the catch has to be completed. so you have to go look at the part of the rule book that defines a completed catch. that's where the football move language comes in
so...  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 8:50 am : link
what happens after a completed catch (including the "football move stuff") is different in the end zone vs field of play

but the rule book says (elsewhere) that the definition of catch is the same in the end zone and the field of play
RE: RE: .  
arcarsenal : 9/26/2014 8:51 am : link
In comment 11884784 ray in arlington said:
Quote:
In comment 11884782 fkap said:


Quote:


you need to make a football move for it to be a catch. Why can you do a toe tap on the sideline/endzone and go out of bounds, and have it be a catch? There's no football move on the field of play. I can see if the receiver falls down, the act of falling can be a football move, and he still has to maintain position through the fall. But just as often, though, a player remains upright and momentum takes him out without a football move on the field of play.

We got away with one where we stood up the redskin, forward progress clearly stopped, and then we ripped the ball out. there was a sloooooow whistle which kept the ball in play. Kind of balances out that the endzone play was a clear possession.



I'll repeat again:

football move is not required, just control long enough for a football move.

sideline catch is a separate item in the rule book





But it's entirely possible he didn't control it long enough for a football move. Like I said, I thought it should have been a TD but it was pretty close. I'm not outraged in the refs thinking he didn't control it long enough to make a football move. He got control of it in mid air and literally the second his feet hit the ground, he got hit and the ball came out.

It was a bang-bang play. Hardly an egregious error by the officials or something I'd get up in arms over.
Even on the sideline catches  
Csonka : 9/26/2014 8:52 am : link
having two feet down isn't enough. You have to maintain possession through the end of the play.

In slow-mo you can see both feet down, but at full speed it was pretty bang-bang. I thought it was the right call ... a bad luck INT for Eli. Glad it didn't come close to mattering.
RE: Why would Randall make a  
Jim in Fairfax : 9/26/2014 8:53 am : link
In comment 11884793 Peter from CT said:
Quote:
He is in the end zone with the ball in his hands. What is he supposed to do? He's not trying to gain additional yardage....

He doesn't have to make a move. He has to have it LONG ENOUGH to make a move. The point is there is period of time you have to possess the in your hands before it becomes a completion. It's not a completion immediately on contact with his hands.
The Rule Book  
sphinx : 9/26/2014 8:54 am : link
COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete
(by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in
the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

I have a real problem with a couple concepts:  
Go Terps : 9/26/2014 8:56 am : link
1. "football move"
2. "completing the process"

Both of these terms seem to lend themselves to a huge amount of subjectivity, given the opportunity. When the rule was "possession and two feet" the only opportunity for subjectivity was the concept of possession...something that with today's cameras is easier to determine than ever before.

Yesterday we had two plays where the rulings, I thought, completely contradicted each other:

1. Niles Paul catches the ball over the middle, gets two feet down, lowers his head, is hit to the ground where he loses possession of the ball. He is deemed after review to have completed the process and been down by contact.

2. Reuben Randle catches the ball in the end zone, gets two feet down, turns, and has the ball knocked out of his hands into those of a Redskin player. He is deemed after review to not have completed the process and the ruling is an interception.

From the NFL rulebook:

Quote:

PLAYER POSSESSION
Article 7
Item 1: Player in Possession.

A player is in possession when he is in bounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.

Item 2: Possession of Loose Ball.

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 or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

Item 3: Simultaneous Possession of a Loose Ball.

If a Loose Ball is controlled simultaneously by two opponents, and both players retain it, it is simultaneous possession, and the ball belongs to the team last in possession, or to the receiving team when there has been a Free Kick, Scrimmage Kick, or Fair Catch Kick. It is not simultaneous possession if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

CATCH

A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if, in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to it touching the ground and that control is maintained during and after the ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.


"Completing the process" is not clearly defined in Notes 2 & 3 of Item 3, and the term "football move" is not anywhere to be found in any of that language. If this is all the NFL Rulebook does to describe what comprises a catch, then the language is lacking. I don't see any language in the rule that tells us the Randle play was not a touchdown.
Link - ( New Window )
RE: The Rule Book  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 8:57 am : link
In comment 11884816 sphinx said:
Quote:
COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete
(by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in
the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.


Thanks for copying that into the thread (I have a .pdf).

Item (c) and Note 1 are the important items here.
RE: I have a real problem with a couple concepts:  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:06 am : link
Go terps, What you posted said to look at 8-1-3. That is what sphinx posted, and that is where you will find the language on completing the catch and the "football move" stuff.
It would be great if we could ask Coughlin: 'Coach, if that pass in  
Marty in Albany : 9/26/2014 9:08 am : link
the endzone to Rueben Randle had been swatted to the ground and been declared an incomplete pass (rather than intercepted) would you have challenged the "incomplete" call?" "Do you think you would win that challenge?"
Ray  
Go Terps : 9/26/2014 9:08 am : link
The term "football move" is nowhere in the rule.
toe tapping catches  
fkap : 9/26/2014 9:09 am : link
shouldn't he have to maintain possession long enough IN THE FIELD OF PLAY? I'm guessing that a second defender can't whack the receiver out of bounds during that required time of possession, so why should a receiver be able to complete his catch (time possession) out of bounds?

bottom line is that there's no point getting upset about rules you disagree with. I'd be surprised if any us of don't have at least one rule we think is misguided. What's more important is that the rules are evenly applied, especially within a game. Last night, they seemed pretty fair. some missed calls, some gifts for both teams, overall let them play.
Was I the only one who saw a 'football move' after the catch?  
jcn56 : 9/26/2014 9:09 am : link
Could be that I was just too deliriously happy at that point to be trusted, but Randle comes down with the ball, then pivots to shoulder the hit.

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.
This whole "football move" thing  
McGIANTS : 9/26/2014 9:09 am : link
is ridiculous. It sounds ridiculous when you hear it, when you say it, when you read it. Is there such thing as a baseball move? A basketball move? A hockey move? It's just added nonsense to make something relatively easy to understand more complicated. Like many have already said, he caught the damn ball. Two feet down, yes, he held it. That should be it. Play over. How long is long enough? 5 seconds? 10? Hold the ball long enough to make a football move? He's in the freaking endzone. Others have said he started to turn once he caught and held onto the ball. How's that not a football move? Good thing it didn't affect the outcome of the game though.
RE: Ray  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:10 am : link
In comment 11884854 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The term "football move" is nowhere in the rule.


yes that phrase is not literally there. it's called "an act common to the game" (and examples are provided).
Terps..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 9/26/2014 9:11 am : link
basically, the NFL complicate a rule that needed no further complication. Like you said - if you get make the catch and get two feet down, it is very easy to determine. Start adding criteria like football moves, maintain possession, etc,. and all you do is widen the margin for error.

I'm a firm believer that the NFL could greatly ease the burden on the refs if they stopped making rules so intricate. eliminate illegal contact, so there doesn't have to be an interpretation on who initiated the contact, and make the criteria to make a catch more simple. It would go a long way to avoiding controversies.
It was clearly and obviously a touchdown.  
Exit 172 : 9/26/2014 9:12 am : link
The referee got it wrong (no surprise there), and I'm inclined to agree with Eli's point of view over most others.
RE: Putting the priviso..  
Victor in CT : 9/26/2014 9:12 am : link
In comment 11884765 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
that you need "time" to make a football move is adding unneeded interpretation.

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
That play,  
Doomster : 9/26/2014 9:14 am : link
and the penalty on Demps on the long pass down the middle, were just bad calls.....

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...
Swirling Eddie  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:14 am : link
posted the 2004 version of the rules on one of the threads, and it basically was the way most people want it.
That's a TD and a terrible call  
deadkurtrulz : 9/26/2014 9:16 am : link
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.
Thinking about it,  
Doomster : 9/26/2014 9:19 am : link
Eli has 5 int's.....one off a foot, one off a shoulder pad, one on a desperation pass at the end of the game, and one that should have been a td pass.....so while he has five, he really should only have two....
I'll also add that instant replay sucks  
Go Terps : 9/26/2014 9:19 am : link
The quality of refereeing has only gone down since its inception, and the stoppages are interminable. I could have screamed on the Niles Paul play...

- 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?
What football move does a receiver who dives in the end zone  
Headhunter : 9/26/2014 9:21 am : link
extended catches the ball in the air and bounces? Is bouncing and rolling on the ground a football move?
Love ya Marty.  
Beezer : 9/26/2014 9:22 am : link

But that was a catch 99.7% of the time, end zone or not.

The refs got it wrong.
RE: That's a TD and a terrible call  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:22 am : link
In comment 11884888 deadkurtrulz said:
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 will say..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 9/26/2014 9:23 am : link
on the Paul play, that the Giants have to learn to pick those balls up. It still would've been a penalty, but at least if the giants took the ball, it would have saved the yards gained.

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.
Fats  
fkap : 9/26/2014 9:24 am : link
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.
I thought the play that brought this about was the Megatron play  
Go Terps : 9/26/2014 9:26 am : link
in Chicago in 2010. I still think that was a catch.
RE: What football move does a receiver who dives in the end zone  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:27 am : link
In comment 11884907 Headhunter said:
Quote:
extended catches the ball in the air and bounces? Is bouncing and rolling on the ground a football move?


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.
fkap..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 9/26/2014 9:28 am : link
I understand that, but the "old" way of defining a catch in the end zone was fine. Two feet down and the ball secured = TD.

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.
Again, as someone else has said,  
Beezer : 9/26/2014 9:28 am : link
what act common to the game comes after securing the football with two hands, turning and planting two feet in the end zone?

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.
RE: Fats  
Go Terps : 9/26/2014 9:28 am : link
In comment 11884921 fkap said:
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.
RE: Again, as someone else has said,  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:29 am : link
In comment 11884933 Beezer said:
Quote:
what act common to the game comes after securing the football with two hands, turning and planting two feet in the end zone?

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
arc's 8:30 post says it all for me.  
Mike in Long Beach : 9/26/2014 9:31 am : link
Exactly how I feel. The Skins dropped a gimme INT so in my mind it evened out and his stats look as they should.
RE: Was I the only one who saw a 'football move' after the catch?  
YAJ2112 : 9/26/2014 9:32 am : link
In comment 11884857 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Could be that I was just too deliriously happy at that point to be trusted, but Randle comes down with the ball, then pivots to shoulder the hit.

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.
RE: RE: Fats  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:33 am : link
In comment 11884934 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 11884921 fkap said:


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

fats  
YAJ2112 : 9/26/2014 9:34 am : link
on the Paul play they came back from the replay and ruled that he was down by contact. So no fumble, though I get your point.
RE: RE: That's a TD and a terrible call  
deadkurtrulz : 9/26/2014 9:35 am : link
In comment 11884913 ray in arlington said:
Quote:
In comment 11884888 deadkurtrulz said:


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.
RE: RE: RE: Fats  
Jim in Fairfax : 9/26/2014 9:37 am : link
In comment 11884946 ray in arlington said:
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.
RE: arc's 8:30 post says it all for me.  
deadkurtrulz : 9/26/2014 9:38 am : link
In comment 11884937 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
Exactly how I feel. The Skins dropped a gimme INT so in my mind it evened out and his stats look as they should.


Not really. DB's drop interceptions all the time. That's why they are not WR's.
Jim..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 9/26/2014 9:39 am : link
true, but in the end zone, the play should be dead as soon as the catch is made. you can't have that same criteria at the 50.

In the field of play, a proviso over maintaining possession is much more relevant.
It sure looked like a catch to me  
gidiefor : Mod : 9/26/2014 9:40 am : link
he caught it in the end zone, his feet touched the ground in bounds, and he brought the football down after the catch showing he had control of it

RE: RE: RE: RE: Fats  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:41 am : link
In comment 11884953 Jim in Fairfax said:
Quote:
In comment 11884946 ray in arlington said:


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.


I'm worried that this interpretation of the rule will change the game.  
TheEvilLurker : 9/26/2014 9:42 am : link
If I'm a defensive player, and someone just made a catch, I think I would want to unload in order to cause an interception or fumble.

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.
I thought he pulled the ball to his chest  
WillieYoung : 9/26/2014 9:46 am : link
Isn't that a "football move"?
when we look at the replay  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 9:47 am : link
remember that any of these "football moves" we are talking about have to take place after the ball is secured in the hands and the two feet touch the ground.
IMO, it was a completion  
mrvax : 9/26/2014 9:51 am : link
and I would have said so if it were a Redskins TD.

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.

This was called a TD - why is it different?  
rsjem1979 : 9/26/2014 9:53 am : link


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.
I agree with Go Terps  
cnuke : 9/26/2014 10:06 am : link
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?
Mike Carey..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 9/26/2014 10:08 am : link
even said Paul protected himself and then called him a defenseless receiver immediately afterwards!
The nfl just keeps piling  
Peter from CT : 9/26/2014 10:13 am : link
Dumb rules on top of dumb rules. Whatever.

We got the ball back a couple of plays later....
I thought there were 3 terrible calls in the game:  
Victor in CT : 9/26/2014 10:19 am : link
1) the Randle "non-TD TD"

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
WTF!  
Doomster : 9/26/2014 10:36 am : link
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 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?
marty,  
River Mike : 9/26/2014 10:39 am : link
I'm not going to read though this whole thread, but the few replies I did read indicate they still don't get what you explained and still don't see the difference between a runner who already possesses the ball and breaks the plane, and a receive who must establish possession whether he is in the end zone or not. Now, I think it was a TD. I think he had it long enough to establish possession, but it's a judgement call and the officials' judgement was different than mine.
RE: marty,  
Go Terps : 9/26/2014 10:41 am : link
In comment 11885193 River Mike said:
Quote:
I'm not going to read though this whole thread, but the few replies I did read indicate they still don't get what you explained and still don't see the difference between a runner who already possesses the ball and breaks the plane, and a receive who must establish possession whether he is in the end zone or not. Now, I think it was a TD. I think he had it long enough to establish possession, but it's a judgement call and the officials' judgement was different than mine.


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.
Look man  
giantgiantfan : 9/26/2014 10:42 am : link
every weird interception possible HAS to happen to Eli. It's a rule. So we can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing that specific one will never happen again. He's probably worked damn near all of the goofy ass interceptions out of him by now. However there are still at least two more weird ones left:

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.
RE: marty,  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 10:45 am : link
In comment 11885193 River Mike said:
Quote:
I'm not going to read though this whole thread, but the few replies I did read indicate they still don't get what you explained and still don't see the difference between a runner who already possesses the ball and breaks the plane, and a receive who must establish possession whether he is in the end zone or not. Now, I think it was a TD. I think he had it long enough to establish possession, but it's a judgement call and the officials' judgement was different than mine.


maybe there should be no difference, but in the rule book, the two situations are treated differently.
RE: WTF!  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 10:49 am : link
In comment 11885179 Doomster said:
Quote:
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 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.
RE: I thought there were 3 terrible calls in the game:  
Mike in NY : 9/26/2014 10:51 am : link
In comment 11885109 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
1) the Randle "non-TD TD"

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
RE: I agree with Go Terps  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 10:52 am : link
In comment 11885066 cnuke said:
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).

RE: RE: ...  
Great White Ghost : 9/26/2014 10:53 am : link
In comment 11884726 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 11884717 TICSUAP said:


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.
how do you figure 5? They took the ball right back and they scored.On a pass, if I recall. same end result.Was probably only a minute later.
RE: RE: I agree with Go Terps  
rsjem1979 : 9/26/2014 10:57 am : link
In comment 11885256 ray in arlington said:
Quote:
In comment 11885066 cnuke said:


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.
RE: RE: RE: I agree with Go Terps  
ray in arlington : 9/26/2014 11:06 am : link
In comment 11885279 rsjem1979 said:
Quote:

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.)
I guarantee that  
oldutican : 9/26/2014 1:37 pm : link
if that play happened outside the end zone it gets scored as a fumble, not an int.
Ummmm  
Fpbflppt : 9/26/2014 2:14 pm : link
Because the Ref said it, and that makes it so!
Nonsense call  
GeneInCal : 9/26/2014 2:34 pm : link
The NFL is turning away fans with these rules. They are so worried about the likes of Ray Rice and A.P., but don't realize it's stuff like this that is really damaging the game.
Back to the Corner