REALLY ??? Why would a player have to make a "football move" in the end zone after having the ball and 2 feet down? Makes no sense whatsoever ... As soon as the ball is posessed ... it's a TOUCHDOWN!!!
-
Yes ... it was bang-bang ... but I thought after review ... it was a TD. Ended up not mattering (thank goodness).
mike, we all get this, but there were at least 4 threads on this on Sunday and Monday with people working hard to get the right stuff from the rule book. try to download the rule book and look at 3-1-7 and 8-1-3. the NFL changed 3-1-7 a few years ago and caused this shit.
well I'd recommend reading the rules yourself. There's lots of wrong stuff on rules that gets posted here. I'm not sure whether you are talking about the explanation on the broadcast and what someone said here. but I think you'll see if you look at 3-1-7 that your OP is not correct.
It would be good practice here to understand and apply the correct rule before judging the play.
the reason (or excuse depending on your POV) they give (Polian said it) is that they didn't want the end zone catches to be any different from catches in the field of play.
Here's where Carey ought to earn his paycheck, but he failed miserably.
The rules on this are oddly vague, though. The NFL is exposing itself to future embarrassment if it doesn't clarify that rule. Imagine a similar play in a Super Bowl. Worse, imagine a similar play in a Super Bowl, but it's returned for a TD.
For those comparing the rules for runners and receivers, they are different since a runner does not need to show possession (it is a given) only control. A receiver must show possession; control is only one of the factors.
In Randle's catch, he caught the ball with two feet down in the end zone (his two steps backwards.) This is ruled as not establishing possession.
In Neal's catch, he caught the ball and took two steps forward. This is ruled as establishing possession.
Is it the mere fact that Randle was going backwards and Neal was running forward and thus easier to see?
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.
By the rules, it is a touchdown.
This is part of what is fing up the NFL, the rules are wide open to interpretation. It should go back to two feet down, with control, end of story. A football move?? This is simply killing the game.
Quote:
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.
By the rules, it is a touchdown.
This was addressed on another thread. First of all, note 2, says "if the catch has been completed". For the Randle play, the issue is whether the catch was completed. It it is, we have a TD. Note that the rule you cited said "(See 8-1-3)". 8-1-3 is where you will see the conditions for completing a catch "football move" stuff.
This is part of what is fing up the NFL, the rules are wide open to interpretation. It should go back to two feet down, with control, end of story. A football move?? This is simply killing the game.
The sideline catch is covered by a separate item in the book.
The ball crossing the plane rule only applies when the ball is carried in.
The caught and controlled was a perfectly fine rule that the NFL screwed with to justify some calls that were made and to adhere to the concept that a catch in the end zone should be not different from a catch in the field of play.
the randle call was based on a judgement call that arises from a rule that is hard to interpret and should have been left alone. my judgment is that it was a TD, although not for reasons folks are citing here.
also I'll point out the rule book says that you don't have to make a football move, you just have to "control the ball long enough to make a move common to the game".
This was addressed on another thread. First of all, note 2, says "if the catch has been completed". For the Randle play, the issue is whether the catch was completed. It it is, we have a TD. Note that the rule you cited said "(See 8-1-3)". 8-1-3 is where you will see the conditions for completing a catch "football move" stuff.
Ray, I don't think "football move" applies in the end zone. If so, please post rule 8-1-3. Most people can clearly see that Randle made a completion. He didn't bobble it, drop it, and it never touched the ground. So according to 3-1-7, the ball is dead and a touchdown awarded.
The only debate I can see is the amount of time Randle held the completed catch before it was knocked down. If that's the case, where is the rule requiring how many seconds a ball must be held before it can be a completion?
Quote:
This was addressed on another thread. First of all, note 2, says "if the catch has been completed". For the Randle play, the issue is whether the catch was completed. It it is, we have a TD. Note that the rule you cited said "(See 8-1-3)". 8-1-3 is where you will see the conditions for completing a catch "football move" stuff.
Ray, I don't think "football move" applies in the end zone. If so, please post rule 8-1-3. Most people can clearly see that Randle made a completion. He didn't bobble it, drop it, and it never touched the ground. So according to 3-1-7, the ball is dead and a touchdown awarded.
The only debate I can see is the amount of time Randle held the completed catch before it was knocked down. If that's the case, where is the rule requiring how many seconds a ball must be held before it can be a completion?
Unfortunately I have a .pdf (can't dump the text here). The relevant rules are 3-1-7 and 8-1-3. The time language used in 8-1-3 is "long enough". 3-1-7 was changed (on another thread we had the 2004 version and the 2013 version) to include the end zone.
Maybe the NFL will backtrack when they realize that a defender should be able to pop a guy in the end zone and justify it by saying he hadn't held it long enough to make a football move.
look for the "act common to the game stuff" in 8-1-3. This corresponds to what Carey said on the broadcast.
look for the "act common to the game stuff" in 8-1-3. This corresponds to what Carey said on the broadcast.
It's incredibly vague. "act common to the game stuff" sounds like something some lawyer made up. I believe Carey was wrong, according 7-1-3. In the end I hope they finally clarify the end zone catch because this isn't the first time it's happened and won't be the last.
Start with description of "Touchdown" in 11-2.
See supplemental note 1 that says you have to complete a catch to get a touchdown. It says to see 3-2-7.
3-2-7 item 2 has the "football move" stuff. It specifically mentions the end zone.
And then there's the note you posted (also part of 3-2-7 that tells you to look at 8-1-3).
The rule book sucks. I've had enough.
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.
I'm with Ray on this, the Rule may stink, but I think the Officials can justify the call under the Rules as written. Bear in mind that the Rules also state that when possession is in doubt, the default call in incomplete pass.
But I gotta say that the comparison with a running back flying through the air; stretching out and hitting the pylon with the ball; and then the ball comes flying out...
...is NOT a good example to prove why RR's catch should have been a TD.
Why?
Because the RB in this example IS making a football move. He doesn't have to prove he has made a football move. He already made -- maybe a gazillion football moves -- to get to the point where he's airborne toward the pylon.
I get the football move issue with RR... but in the endzone -- given what happened -- that "football move" rule is a crock of SHIT!!!
...I agree 100% with your comment. You created a great example that highlights the absurdity of the rule.
Truth be told, I confounded what you said with someone else on another thread who mentioned that -- if RR didn't deserve a TD -- neither does a RB flying through the air and hitting the pylon with the ball.
So I think it works best as two separate cases, although I don't think any "football move" stuff should be involved in a situation where there is no need to advance the ball.
...I'm pretty sure that several on this thread are really only commenting on this because it seems like a very strange call, and that the "making a football move" is the sort of rule that can cause a lot of mischief.
That's at least why I've been blabbing/yapping on this thread.
...I think you're onto something when you say that, "...I don't think any "football move" stuff should be involved in a situation where there is no need to advance the ball."
"No need to advance the ball" is IMO the nub of the issue. I think you hit the mark.
suppose the ball is hit 0.5 seconds after the catch? one second? two seconds? three seconds? four seconds? Which one is a touchdown? Or are none because a football move wasn't made?
If one is a TD, then it's based on an amount of time? Then why isn't there a minimum specific time in the rule book?
suppose the ball is hit 0.5 seconds after the catch? one second? two seconds? three seconds? four seconds? Which one is a touchdown? Or are none because a football move wasn't made?
If one is a TD, then it's based on an amount of time? Then why isn't there a minimum specific time in the rule book?
I think we all agree that the rule sucks.
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
So...
Looking at section c, the question really is did he control it long enough to perform a "move common to the game" as described there, whether or not he made one. The section on end zone catches clearly states that this applies to end zone as we'll.
Looking at the play, it was very close. I would love to see it in a non-Giant game to really see it impartially. I think both ways to call it can be defended frankly