Just watched his explanation of why Beckham's catch was not a catch. He actually said his catch was not a catch because he didn't hold it long enough as I'm watching the video of him in complete control and bringing the ball down as one foot is down and then the other touches the ground and then it is slapped out of his hands.
At that point replay clearly shows both feet hit the ground before it was stripped. Why does he have to hold it any longer then the time it took for it to be in his hands and across the goal line and in control and both feet having touched the ground? How long Is long enough?
He said his catch was not a catch!!!! If this doesn't go to show you how fucked up the NFL has got things I don't know what does. Again I would love for the NFL to explain how they eventually evolved to this ridiculous point. I said it before and I'll say it again. Look at Butch Johnson's touchdown catch in Super Bowl 12 and tell me what the fuck is the NFL doing by enforcing such idiotic misinterpretations of the rules.
He has been horrible.
From the party bus to all his points of emphasis. He fucking sucks.
breaking the plane is for a runner who of course already has possession of the football. in this case, the question is whether possession is ever established.
regardless, i think there's approximately zero clarity on what that last sentence entails anymore...
Two feet down and in full control of the ball should be a catch. A player going to the ground must maintain full control for it to be a catch. How is that a problem for these dumb fucks?
Blandino should have been axed the moment he was spotted out partying with the cowboys. That's a position where perceived impartiality is paramount to his credibility . He's incompetent at his job to boot.
If I can freeze the video and see this evidence then the NFL replay official should be able to.
It was called a TD, then a conference, still a TD.....they went out of their way to overrule the call on the field. Somebody needs to be fired!
And count me as confused what a catch is. If you go to the ground you have to maintain control, but if you stay upright, it is supposed to be two feet down - that's exactly what happened.
Then maybe you can explain Dez's "touchdown" catch in the thread that follows this, or better - Golden Tate's "touchdown". I'm all ears...
if that all sounds sketchy, it's because it is sketchy, and they will continue to have these problems.
And count me as confused what a catch is. If you go to the ground you have to maintain control, but if you stay upright, it is supposed to be two feet down - that's exactly what happened.
Quote:
...as disappointed as anyone, but that was not a catch, never has been a catch. As mentioned above, people seem to confuse breaking the plane with possession already established vs. establishing possession. I am like most in that I often am confused by what technically constitutes a catch, but that wasn't that close...that wouldn't have been a catch on any playground or high school game I was ever a part of.
Then maybe you can explain Dez's "touchdown" catch in the thread that follows this, or better - Golden Tate's "touchdown". I'm all ears...
Tate's catch was much closer to this one to compare. But, it was also more questionable because it was even more bang-bang the second foot and hit to knock out the ball. If that was a TD, there is no doubt this is a TD.
The additional verbiage only confuses things.
OBJ actually brings the ball to his chest and then extends it away so he tucked it. The officials on the field had it right. The offical in the booth fucked up.
The additional verbiage only confuses things.
Don't want to start an argument .... but, if a RB stretches out and breaks the plane for a mili-second - they usually call it a TD.
Why all the added circumstances/pre-requisites when it comes to a pass play? 2 feet down and a mili-second should be a TD. Just sayin'.
We are not the first team that has had a TD pass play called back (at a very important part of the game) .... but, the league should be more consistent - especially if they (those powers that be) are trying to push the game to a more pass oriented style of game.
The additional verbiage only confuses things.
Exactly, WTF were they thinking?
I agree but he needs to put the ball away. We were taught that in Pop Warner. He rarely tucks it
A bunch of supposedly smart and qualified individuals did this. THey gathered together and decided that this made more sense than 2 feet and possession of the ball. COmplete insanity. I'm sure these geniuses are just shocked that there have been multiple versions of this type of controversy every couple of weeks. Shocked. Went from objective to nebulous, random, subjective opinion based call. Absurd.
In the Cards/Seahawks game a similar situation in the middle of the field except the TE Fells for Arizona caught the ball never bobbled the balls, took 2 steps turning his head and looking to head up field when he is hit by a Seattle defender, th all comes out and is ruled a fumble on the field. Challenge flag comes out from AZ and it was overturned to incomplete. It was a fumble. Possession, control, 2 feet, football move.
thanks its just so frustrating that I'm harping on it for 24 hours now. It is so maddening. Every football fan knows what a catch looks like. Now suddenly we don't. Stupid nonsense and it cost us a game in my opinion. Among other teams it cost games for as well.
Completely agree. I don't see Beckham starting any type of celebration there.
And now because of guys like Dean Blandino you have this. There has never been so much inconsistency and controversy on a week in and week out basis about so many rules interpretation it takes the joy out of watching the game. So I reiterate. When he says the Beckham was not a catch because, well, I just throw my hands up in the air and say the more the NFL tries the more they fuck things up.
Let me ask you this since you have the answers on what catch is or isn't. If a receiver needs to make a football move for it to be considered a catch, if he, the receiver, catches a ball tight to the sideline and all he can do in all his power is catch the ball with both feet down as he is leaning and his momentum takes him out of bounds and then falls to the ground with ball in his hands it is considered a completed pass. where is the football move? All he did was fall out of bounds.
This is where the hipocrisy comes in. He had nowhere to go other then fall out of bounds. If you are going to tell me his football move was he held onto the ball as he fell out of bounds I will say then the rule is interpreted differently because of where his in relation to the rest off the field. If that's is the case how does that not then apply to plays in the end zone. We see Beckham catch the ball, ball is firmly in his grasp, one foot down, second foot down still with full control, a second later Butler slaps ball out.
I would love to hear what the two officials on the field who conferred and called it a touchdown had to say because to me that whole thing the way it played out continues to blacken the eye of the NFL and the way they officiate these games. They obviously thought it was a touchdown. What it tells you even the officials on the field don't know the rule. I wonder if big Ed wasn't told what to decide by the eye in the sky.
OBJ is learning a lot of lessons the hard way this year. He's also playing great football, despite having a target on him all season long.
If big Ed was doing the Philly game would he have ruled it the way he ruled in the Pats game? If so how is it then one Ref says touchdown and the other say incomplete.
Does that mean the officials are all interpreting the rules differently from each other. If that's the case why have a written rule. How can you go by the letter of the law and come up with a different outcome.
The rule says what you should call and Refs around the league are all calling it differently. There should be no thought process here. It can't be that divergent of a difference.
It's not like the umpire behind the plate who may give a little more off the plate then the next guy because his eyes tell him this is how I see it. If a guy catches the ball for However long he holds it and two feet touch the ground that's all the ref needs to know. Now they have to put a stop watch on it in their heads to say well, he didn't hold long enough in my mind. The NFL needs to simplify the ruling on the field. The make it more complicated then it needs to be.
Official rules it a touchdown.
Then two officials confer in the end zone. They agree and again, rule it a touchdown.
The replay shows up that with those gigantic hands OBJ very clearly possessed the football - no juggling, no movement, zero - then had one foot easily down and then the touch of the second, followed almost immediately by the reach-around.
And the fucking guy IMMEDIATELY is on the television screen saying with certainty that it was NOT a touchdown?
Baffling!!!
I think what the NFL has done to create gray area re: catch/non-catch is horrible and just one of a number of things they are doing to lessen the enjoyment of the game, BUT... based on what we have seen in recent years, OBJ did not get a TD.
I didn't think it was one when it happened and was not surprised when it was overturned.
Damn, that loss frustrates me.
lol
Love me some OBJ. But he'll cross the line and be called for something - excessive celebration ... unsportsmanlike conduct ... or maybe even a made-up rule, "The New York Giants receiver caught the ball for a touchdown, then sarcastically motioned to the officials ... too much sarcasm ... 15-yard penalty ... that penalty will be enforced on the kickoff."
Call could have gone either way. The reviewers in NY could have easily said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn or could have agreed it was a TD. They didn't and that is the way it goes. Lesson #2 on that play- don't put the game in the hands of the referees in the first place.
The league needs to be more consistent in this.
Putting my tin foil hat on, I think they like it that way. It gives them the ability to shape the outcome of the game and ensure the games remain as competitive as possible.
Yet, the Pats seem to get favorable calls over and over again.
It's paramount the NFL clean up this rule, there's too much left open to interpretation on the field, and increases the element of influence the refs have on the game.
I don't think "time" is written anywhere in the rules.
The reason being, it would create all kinds of confusion where, one referee may determine it has to be a second, another 2 seconds, another 3 seconds.....so to eliminate that, the rule adds the simultaneous element to it....if it is hit out of the receiver's hands simultaneously as the second foot comes down, than no reception....but this was not the case, and the referees making the decision, did not have video evidence, to over rule the call on the field....a total Cluster f*ck by the NFL.....
Without that simultaneous rule, any ball can be knocked out of the receiver's hands in the endzone, on the discretion of a referee, seconds after a catch....so what determines how long Butler has to knock that ball out? According to Blandino, he "just didn't hold it long enough"? There is nothing in the rule for a length of time, only the simultaneous element....so based on that, it was a catch and a td....otherwise, anyone, catching a ball with two feet on the ground, and not moving, can have that ball swatted away by a defender in any time frame......
The reason being, it would create all kinds of confusion where, one referee may determine it has to be a second, another 2 seconds, another 3 seconds.....so to eliminate that, the rule adds the simultaneous element to it....if it is hit out of the receiver's hands simultaneously as the second foot comes down, than no reception....but this was not the case, and the referees making the decision, did not have video evidence, to over rule the call on the field....a total Cluster f*ck by the NFL.....
Without that simultaneous rule, any ball can be knocked out of the receiver's hands in the endzone, on the discretion of a referee, seconds after a catch....so what determines how long Butler has to knock that ball out? According to Blandino, he "just didn't hold it long enough"? There is nothing in the rule for a length of time, only the simultaneous element....so based on that, it was a catch and a td....otherwise, anyone, catching a ball with two feet on the ground, and not moving, can have that ball swatted away by a defender in any time frame......
There is no specific timeframe, but the rule says this:
So there is more then just the "simultaneous" clause.
Say it again Dean. Beckham's catch was not a catch. He didn't say Beckham's attempt to catch the ball. He said Beckham's catch. Whew.
Think about how fucking stupid that sounds. He basically said Beckham caught the ball. Why? Because he did. What else is there to say. Yet because of his perverse idea of making a football move in the endzone he didn't really catch the ball. I guess it was a fucking illusion. Boy oh boy he contradicts himself so eloquently.
What the hell does that actually mean? How is that determined? It's so vague and nebulous as to be practically meaningless, and subject to the interpretive whim of the officials.
Yet, the Pats seem to get favorable calls over and over again.
If you want to wear your tinfoil hat, maybe it's not "institutional" bias, but the bias of a single individual. Don't they consult with "home base" (i.e. Blandino) on all reviews now? There's clearly a relationship between Blandino and the Jones'...
In his explanation he even said OBJ did not hold it long enough. That means he was holding the ball Dean. I wanted to ram my head through the wall when I heard his explanation. None of it made any sense.
The additional verbiage only confuses things.
Not sure if this adds to the analysis or conversation, but it is another element in the way NFL officials call "catches": When a receiver, with two feet or two toes just inside the sideline or endline in the endzone, gathers the ball in (I am not going to say "catch"), controls it (i.e., no wobble/slip) and continues his momentum and falls to the ground outside the field of play, the apparent checklist the umpire must run through is that the ball is securely in the grasp all the way to the ground and is not bobbled or come loose.
So, there is certainly a <b>"continuation"</b> element to the analysis, which may well be justified because it is the receiver's own momentum vis à vis going out of play, not because of a defender's effort to strip (and quite distinct from the "breaking the plane" analysis on a TD by a runner with possession and control). But should the continuation element of the analysis be applied where it is receiver vs. defender trying to strip?
The question is whether an OBJ "catch", where out of bounds does not figure into the analysis, should be treated differently from either or both of the analogous situations? I agree that the "football move" overlay confuses the assessment in the EZ, because there is move that need be made (is there, Blandino?).
I don't remember there being outcry. It was simple. Two feet equaled a catch. Changing the interpretation of the bobble rule made things simple to determine, yet this verbiage complicates things much worse than it ever was before. And my belief is it was an unnecessary change.
Or how the giants lost the game in OT.
I'd imagine if in the process of "tucking it" it was slapped people would say he needed to have the foresight to stretch it out.
This idea he should have protected the ball is pretty bad. He got two feet down.
The NBA is capable of telling if a ball leaves a guy's hand before the shot/game clock hits zero. No reason you can't add an objective element.
That said, they need to get a rule everyone can understand in place as to what a catch is, my suggestion is to get rid of replay, take the excess pressure off of the officials and the call is the call, adjust and move on.
- which goes back to the question of why the rule change: without doubt it is easier, clearer, cleaner to assess a receiver's grasping the ball in his hand(s) (the "s" clarification for OBJ's benefit) and possessing/controlling it. Must it be a nanosecond, half second, full second. If OBJ just stopped, and Butler was not near him, if he drops the ball to the ground and walks to the sideline, is that a catch?
The NBA is capable of telling if a ball leaves a guy's hand before the shot/game clock hits zero. No reason you can't add an objective element.
the NFL already had made it easy and it was the best way. Not only was it easy but also common sense. Forget time. A catch in the endzone should be the most simple thing to rule on in football:
Didd the receiver have possession of the ball without any bobbling, and did he have to feet down with possession?
THe end. It's simple, obvious, and the only thing that makes sense in the endzone.
- which goes back to the question of why the rule change: without doubt it is easier, clearer, cleaner to assess a receiver's grasping the ball in his hand(s) (the "s" clarification for OBJ's benefit) and possessing/controlling it. Must it be a nanosecond, half second, full second. If OBJ just stopped, and Butler was not near him, if he drops the ball to the ground and walks to the sideline, is that a catch?
Catching the ball doesn't have to involve bringing it in to your chest. I know TC wants him to do that to make it obvious, and I know that is the best way to secure the ball on a catch. However it's not necessary and shouldn't be.
Secondly, no what you described is not a catch unless he holds it long enough for Dean Blandino's liking.
This is why I asked the more difficult question: if is a catch if no one is near him but he never becomes a runn? He just catches it and stands there. And evidently the answer is it becomes a catch after a certain undetermined amount of time goes by after he has possession.
Of course I asked this question because it makes no sense that what ODB did should be different than just catching it and standing there.
would that catch be called a fumble?
would that catch be called a fumble?
it would have to be an incomplete pass based on the ruling
At what point did Santonio Holmes become a runner or make a football move? WHEN HE FUCKING FELL OUT OF BOUNDS?!?
Bullshit. As. Usual.
The rule honestly is amateurish. Like I said earlier, a bunch of people in charge of rules and officiating got together and somehow thought this rule would be an improvement over 2 feet and possession. It goes along with the other problems the officials have had in that nothing is clear, its more confusing to the refs and to the players and coaches. And fans. At a time when everything should be more objective due to the availability of replay, they made everything more of a guessing game and an opinion based call. Hence no PI looking the same as any other. Hence many apologies from the league. Hence replays taking away obvious calls because of technicalities. Hence bad calls many times each game.
Dean Blandino has done a great job of making the best league in the country worse.
Quote:
because he didn't hold onto the ball long enough, where in that freakin' rule is there a specific time frame for possession? There is none!
The reason being, it would create all kinds of confusion where, one referee may determine it has to be a second, another 2 seconds, another 3 seconds.....so to eliminate that, the rule adds the simultaneous element to it....if it is hit out of the receiver's hands simultaneously as the second foot comes down, than no reception....but this was not the case, and the referees making the decision, did not have video evidence, to over rule the call on the field....a total Cluster f*ck by the NFL.....
Without that simultaneous rule, any ball can be knocked out of the receiver's hands in the endzone, on the discretion of a referee, seconds after a catch....so what determines how long Butler has to knock that ball out? According to Blandino, he "just didn't hold it long enough"? There is nothing in the rule for a length of time, only the simultaneous element....so based on that, it was a catch and a td....otherwise, anyone, catching a ball with two feet on the ground, and not moving, can have that ball swatted away by a defender in any time frame......
There is no specific timeframe, but the rule says this:
Quote:
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.
So there is more then just the "simultaneous" clause.
So according to the NFL a receiver should avoid a tackle in the end zone? Because... why?!?
There's no question that Blandino's ignorance regarding the reality of on field officiating has resulted in a precipitous decline in the quality of NFL officiating.
It was a catch. I do think OBJ was celebrating a catch, which in retrospect was not wise, but that's not grounds for reversing a called touchdown.
As has been discussed, I have no idea how that play was reversed by replay. Totally fucked up.
And isn't it strange how there's always something slightly askance with all the Pats wins?
makes zero sense that a receiver must become a runner and yet a runner outside the end zone only has to break the plain without maintaining control.