that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
to the 2nd foot. I think it was after. Even if by a fraction of a second to a full second, it doesn't matter. The 2nd foot with control in the end zone is supposed to end the play. The ball is dead.
Even if you think it was simultaneous, to say it wasn't close is just not being honest. As I've said in other threads, it really could go either way, which means there is not indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field, which was TD.
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
if they had ruled it INC o/n the field and the Giants challenged, I would say they couldn't overturn it. I would still think it was a TD, but I could understand them saying it was close enough to not be sure.
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
It really sucks, but that one really wasn't even very close. The refs got it right.
I'd lose my damned mind if that was ever ruled a TD against my team in a big spot.
based on what ? He had 2 feet down, is that not the rule in the end zone ?
Correct, that is not the rule. Oddly enough, the rule in the EZ isn't different than anywhere else in the field. The receiver needs to 'complete the act' and establish himself as a runner (that is runner as defined in the rules) despite the fact that he has nowhere to run.
Shitty rule? Sure, I could get on board w that. But unfortunately I think the zebras got this call right, and like I said, I think most NFL refs would tell you it wasn't that close
It really sucks, but that one really wasn't even very close. The refs got it right.
I'd lose my damned mind if that was ever ruled a TD against my team in a big spot.
You couldn't be more wrong. He controlled the ball and 2 feet came down. That's all you need. He was not going to the ground, so once the foot comes down with control, play over. The NFL screwed the pooch on this one.
make contact on OBJ's back before he got the 2nd foot, so I am under the assumption he has to maintain the catch all the way through, even if he gets a 2nd foot down.
Here's a concept though. Protect the ball, and dont put the zebras in position to make the call.
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
what'd my first sentence say?
Ya, i disagreed with it being close. on the replay it was obvious as all hell... but i got ya.
RE: RE: There is no F-ing football move in the end zone.
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
then maintain control of the ball
until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
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.
If you catch it at the corner of the EZ, drag your feet and go out of bounds its a TD. BUT, if you catch it in the middle of the EZ, you have to make a football move after having two feet down.
Unlike previous "catch or not catch" confusion moments, the problem here isn't that Beckham was "going to the ground." It's somehow an even stupider rule.
The NFL's rules state that a player has to complete the catch through the moment he "becomes a runner," which is defined as the moment "is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact." This wording is new this year, replacing the dreaded "football move" language that previously existed.
It doesn't look like Beckham held the ball long enough to avoid or ward off impending contact
A basic tenet of football is that when a player possesses the ball in the end zone, the play is over, and it's a touchdown. The only exception right now is on catches. No, Beckham didn't "become a runner," but he had possession of the ball in the end zone. In every other situation, that means it's a TD. Link - ( New Window )
RE: might as well post the rule here too, See the last sentence
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
then maintain control of the ball
until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
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.
Well, based on this then my earlier post is wrong. Its the first time I have seen this interpretation apply to the endzone. Odell clearly controlled the ball and the 2 feet came down. He did not take another step before being stripped, I guess if he had, then it would be a catch.
I think you have the rule incorrect. My understanding is that there's more to it than "ball and 2 feet"
Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to be harsh. Its new wording this year which is ridiculous in this situation. Odell clearly caught the ball and had 2 feet down. Again, apologies.
A receiver catches a pass in the endzone, and comes down, one foot just before the other, and doesn't move.....how long does the defender have, once the second foot touches, to hit that ball? one tenth? one half? one second? 10 seconds? There is nothing in the rule that gives a timeframe for this....if the ball comes out before the second foot comes down, yes I can see it being incomplete......but in slow mo, there is no way that ball came out of his hands, before the second foot was down...
I think you have the rule incorrect. My understanding is that there's more to it than "ball and 2 feet"
Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to be harsh. Its new wording this year which is ridiculous in this situation. Odell clearly caught the ball and had 2 feet down. Again, apologies.
No apology necessary, man.
Anyone who isn't at least a little fired up and edgy after that game doesn't have a pulse.
Holding on Dallas game 1 at the end not called in the endzone - we lose
saints fumbled punt return - not only land on it but receive the 1 sided facemask call when a non fumbling player can't advance the ball (also while he is also grabbing our punters facemask) - we lose
Beckham play called a touchdown and overturned despite two feet being down, atleast 2 block in the backs on amendola's punt return not called - we lose
getting pretty tired of these refs wanting to be the center of attention.
any interpretation of the rules indicates that if OBJ had possession at the top of his jump, landed with at least one foot down, and subsequently took another step and then simultaneously with the NEXT step was stripped, it should have been ruled a completion.
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
what'd my first sentence say?
The qreal question actually is whether that was his second or third step.
RE: RE: might as well post the rule here too, See the last sentence
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
then maintain control of the ball
until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
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.
Well, based on this then my earlier post is wrong. Its the first time I have seen this interpretation apply to the endzone. Odell clearly controlled the ball and the 2 feet came down. He did not take another step before being stripped, I guess if he had, then it would be a catch.
The refs ruled that he did not have complete control of the ball at the top of his jump so when the first foot came down, it did not count. He then needed to take two steps with complete control of the ball. As he took his second step, the ball was knocked out so he did not score.
The refs ruled that he did not have complete control of the ball at the top of his jump so when the first foot came down, it did not count. He then needed to take two steps with complete control of the ball. As he took his second step, the ball was knocked out so he did not score.
I dont see any other way that call is overturned.
Bingo, and that's where I'd say they screwed the Giants. They made the call as if possession in his hands wasn't already clearly established before his first foot was down. Which to my eyes it was. Having noted that, fact is OBJ was cavalier with the ball. With his huge mitts he should have secured it better.
The Landon Collins "drop" was an even worse play (by Collins) but again I did not see the ball ever hit the ground, not until well after he was down. Anyone got a gig or tape of that?
So many opportunities to win this game "slipped through the Giants' hands."
second foot clearly on the ground, ball secured, turning away from the catch. NFL says there is enough evidence to OVERTURN the call on the field.
Don't know that I understand the rule. What Carey said made sense IF the ball coming loose was simultaneous, but doesn't make sense since it is clearly not. What can you do?
I think that was a clear situation where that was NOT a catch in terms of completing the act of catching the ball. He catches it but his falling is part of the act of attempting the catch and he drops it before he is in possession after hitting the ground. I partially see it where he catches it, the forearm hitting the ground means he is done with the catch and then it comes out...however I can at least understand how that could be construed as the same thing as a guy diving for a ball, catching it midair, and then landing on his arms knocking the ball loose which would be a dropped ball because his arms hitting the ground is the continuation of a catch attempt.
Of course in my scenario, if the guy dives, has the ball and then lands with the ball in his hands and arms touching the ground and THEN drops it, it could be seen as a catch and a fumble perhaps? I don't know. I give up .
Totally agree with you. He had total control when one foot came down and then the second foot lands. Immediately after that the ball is knocked out of his hands. You have to be blind not to be able to see that. So, I ask you. When is a catch not a catch. The NFL has taken this to such an absurd level it leaves ones head spinning.
He caught the fucking ball. I can't believe big Ed could not see both feet had hit the ground before the ball was slapped out. So I guess the rule has had another amendment to its interpretation at least in his book. I mean for crying out loud the two officials who signaled touchdown both conversed for but a few seconds and agreed it was a touchdwon.
In a case like that I think the NFL needs to have those two officials and big Ed questioned after the game about their interpretations as opposed to his ruling because they clearly had differing opinions.
... he was unable to become a runner? To run where, exactly - he's in the end zone.
This season, there seems to be a very large number of fans - and players - and coaches - and officials - all asking the same question: "when is a catch a catch?"
i.e., able to ward off or evade contact when the defender has already made contact prior to contact with the second foot?
Regardless of this discussion, it was NOT a touchdown because the replay official said so!
So let's lose the instant replay silliness and go back to letting the officials working the game making all the calls and having those calls stand. Just think how many commercials we won't have to watch while the play is "under review".
Blatant hand right to the face by the Patriots #69. All other lineman on both sides look fine. I honestly think the refs forgot who was who and it was too late to fix their fuck up when Hoculi announced the penalty. No number, nothing. Continued embarrassments by NFL referees.
just another sunday where the officials routinely cost us
I sit through an NFL football game. That what is or isn't a catch is unclear to the average fan is not acceptable. Imagine watching hockey and there being this level of uncertainty regarding a goal....or in soccer....or what is or isn't a travel in basketball (sorry Ewing fans).
NFL football has lost more than it has gained in my lifetime. It is generally more frustrating to watch than it is enjoyable and fans spend more time arguing about calls being overturned than they do the X's and O's of the sport.
I'd lose my damned mind if that was ever ruled a TD against my team in a big spot.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
I'd lose my damned mind if that was ever ruled a TD against my team in a big spot.
based on what ? He had 2 feet down, is that not the rule in the end zone ?
Even if you think it was simultaneous, to say it wasn't close is just not being honest. As I've said in other threads, it really could go either way, which means there is not indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field, which was TD.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
Also, not sure why ODB held the ball out rather than pull it in. Makes no sense. He didn't protect the ball.
Quote:
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
what'd my first sentence say?
he has to make that catch, what in the hell is he doing with his arms/body to fall that way?
Quote:
It really sucks, but that one really wasn't even very close. The refs got it right.
I'd lose my damned mind if that was ever ruled a TD against my team in a big spot.
based on what ? He had 2 feet down, is that not the rule in the end zone ?
Correct, that is not the rule. Oddly enough, the rule in the EZ isn't different than anywhere else in the field. The receiver needs to 'complete the act' and establish himself as a runner (that is runner as defined in the rules) despite the fact that he has nowhere to run.
Shitty rule? Sure, I could get on board w that. But unfortunately I think the zebras got this call right, and like I said, I think most NFL refs would tell you it wasn't that close
I'd lose my damned mind if that was ever ruled a TD against my team in a big spot.
You couldn't be more wrong. He controlled the ball and 2 feet came down. That's all you need. He was not going to the ground, so once the foot comes down with control, play over. The NFL screwed the pooch on this one.
Hochuli has regressed to be a pretty shitty ref who has been mired in at least one controversial game a year for the past few years.
Given this, if it is the rule the Giants got screwed hard.
Hochuli has regressed to be a pretty shitty ref who has been mired in at least one controversial game a year for the past few years.
Was this all on the field overturn or ruled on field a TD then upstiars. seems like it never got upstairs for review ?
Here's a concept though. Protect the ball, and dont put the zebras in position to make the call.
Quote:
In comment 12625285 SirYesSir said:
Quote:
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
what'd my first sentence say?
Ya, i disagreed with it being close. on the replay it was obvious as all hell... but i got ya.
Quote:
2 feet with control of the ball is supposed to be a dead ball and negates anything that happens after that.
Given this, if it is the rule the Giants got screwed hard.
But as the truth would have it, this is not actually the rule
. 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
then maintain control of the ball
until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
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.
If this was a TD, then Eli's INT last year in Washington was a TD to Randle. But it wasn't.
blah blah football move - ( New Window )
The NFL's rules state that a player has to complete the catch through the moment he "becomes a runner," which is defined as the moment "is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact." This wording is new this year, replacing the dreaded "football move" language that previously existed.
It doesn't look like Beckham held the ball long enough to avoid or ward off impending contact
A basic tenet of football is that when a player possesses the ball in the end zone, the play is over, and it's a touchdown. The only exception right now is on catches. No, Beckham didn't "become a runner," but he had possession of the ball in the end zone. In every other situation, that means it's a TD.
Link - ( New Window )
. 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
then maintain control of the ball
until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
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.
Well, based on this then my earlier post is wrong. Its the first time I have seen this interpretation apply to the endzone. Odell clearly controlled the ball and the 2 feet came down. He did not take another step before being stripped, I guess if he had, then it would be a catch.
Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to be harsh. Its new wording this year which is ridiculous in this situation. Odell clearly caught the ball and had 2 feet down. Again, apologies.
Quote:
I think you have the rule incorrect. My understanding is that there's more to it than "ball and 2 feet"
Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to be harsh. Its new wording this year which is ridiculous in this situation. Odell clearly caught the ball and had 2 feet down. Again, apologies.
No apology necessary, man.
Anyone who isn't at least a little fired up and edgy after that game doesn't have a pulse.
saints fumbled punt return - not only land on it but receive the 1 sided facemask call when a non fumbling player can't advance the ball (also while he is also grabbing our punters facemask) - we lose
Beckham play called a touchdown and overturned despite two feet being down, atleast 2 block in the backs on amendola's punt return not called - we lose
getting pretty tired of these refs wanting to be the center of attention.
Quote:
In comment 12625285 SirYesSir said:
Quote:
that Carey and the announcers both said the ball was stripped "at the same time" the second foot came down. That is clearly not true, the foot came down before the strip.
With that said, it was EXTREMELY close, and while it met the standards for the rule, it did not pass the eyeball test for me as a touchdown. Of course I wanted it to be, but....I don't know what to say. Had that been Amendola in the endzone in opposite circumstances, I would scream it wasn't a catch.
With that said, if the league stands by the Golden Tate touchdown from a few weeks ago, they should of allowed this. Especially considering they called it a TD on the field, and I certainly don't think there's clear evidence they were wrong.
Did you watch the replay it wasnt close at all. his foot was clearly down before strip.
what'd my first sentence say?
The qreal question actually is whether that was his second or third step.
Quote:
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
then maintain control of the ball
until he has clearly become a runner. A player
becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
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.
Well, based on this then my earlier post is wrong. Its the first time I have seen this interpretation apply to the endzone. Odell clearly controlled the ball and the 2 feet came down. He did not take another step before being stripped, I guess if he had, then it would be a catch.
+1
I dont see any other way that call is overturned.
I dont see any other way that call is overturned.
Bingo, and that's where I'd say they screwed the Giants. They made the call as if possession in his hands wasn't already clearly established before his first foot was down. Which to my eyes it was. Having noted that, fact is OBJ was cavalier with the ball. With his huge mitts he should have secured it better.
The Landon Collins "drop" was an even worse play (by Collins) but again I did not see the ball ever hit the ground, not until well after he was down. Anyone got a gig or tape of that?
So many opportunities to win this game "slipped through the Giants' hands."
Don't know that I understand the rule. What Carey said made sense IF the ball coming loose was simultaneous, but doesn't make sense since it is clearly not. What can you do?
Of course in my scenario, if the guy dives, has the ball and then lands with the ball in his hands and arms touching the ground and THEN drops it, it could be seen as a catch and a fumble perhaps? I don't know. I give up .
He caught the fucking ball. I can't believe big Ed could not see both feet had hit the ground before the ball was slapped out. So I guess the rule has had another amendment to its interpretation at least in his book. I mean for crying out loud the two officials who signaled touchdown both conversed for but a few seconds and agreed it was a touchdwon.
In a case like that I think the NFL needs to have those two officials and big Ed questioned after the game about their interpretations as opposed to his ruling because they clearly had differing opinions.
This season, there seems to be a very large number of fans - and players - and coaches - and officials - all asking the same question: "when is a catch a catch?"
Regardless of this discussion, it was NOT a touchdown because the replay official said so!
So let's lose the instant replay silliness and go back to letting the officials working the game making all the calls and having those calls stand. Just think how many commercials we won't have to watch while the play is "under review".
And as a bonus, ask him how two Giants had their facemasks pushed up, yet we were the ones called for hands to the face on a crucial stop.
So blatant that no number was ever given - just hands to the face on the defense.
godfuckingdammit
NFL football has lost more than it has gained in my lifetime. It is generally more frustrating to watch than it is enjoyable and fans spend more time arguing about calls being overturned than they do the X's and O's of the sport.