Dean Blandino, of course, says no TD was the right call

Clear as day.

time to say the rule is confusing as fuck and that the NFL will simplify it so that two feet equals a TD.

How the hell does that schmuck not realize that things are much more complex by adding undefined variables of time and beginning a football move? One could say extending the ball was a football move, but then this "time" aspect is there.

What the fuck?

Of course he doesn't, because the moron has no fucking idea.

You need to establish yourself as a runner IN THE FIELD OF PLAY. In the end zone you're not going to be a runner so, you should only need to establish possession in bounds.

But, what do i know?

by kicking him in the nuts

the "Baghdad Bob" of the NFL

That's why OBJ was beginning his celebration. These morons failed to realize that it was celebration because they lack the basic reasoning skills to to deduce that there is no other reason a receiver would take a ball tucked against his body and suddenly extend his arms out full length.

just an idiot

COmplete idiot. If that ain't a TD nothing is

This is stupid.

no where is a time amount mentioned in the rules. One second? Two? Half a second?

In comment 12632262 Curtis in VA said:

Quote:

This is stupid.

Yes it is. Possesion of the ball, 2 feet down, TD plain & simple. You don't need that bs about making a runner move. When you already crossed the line? Smh

inside the endzone?

When he made the statement, was he making the 'make it rain' hand gesture?

.

In comment 12632250 AP in Halfmoon said:

Quote:

by kicking him in the nuts

this

then doesn't it make sense to require a player to run INTO the end zone? no more reaching out and sticking the ball over.

In comment 12632248 Mike in Philly said:

Quote:

You need to establish yourself as a runner IN THE FIELD OF PLAY. In the end zone you're not going to be a runner so, you should only need to establish possession in bounds. But, what do i know?

3-2-7 specifically says that the rule applies on the field of play and in the end zone.

In comment 12632240 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

time to say the rule is confusing as fuck and that the NFL will simplify it so that two feet equals a TD. How the hell does that schmuck not realize that things are much more complex by adding undefined variables of time and beginning a football move? One could say extending the ball was a football move, but then this "time" aspect is there. What the fuck?

Fatman, you know of course the officials don't write or revise the rules, they interpret and enforce them. Any ire about the rules as written should be directed at the owners' Competition Cmtee.

Unless of course you agree with me that the officials didn't have sufficient grounds to overturn the original call of TD in the first place!

runner". If that's the case, then on a running play, the player who stretches the ball over the plane and immediately has it knocked out of his hands, and a TD is correctly indicated, that would seem to be the same nanosecond, i.e., feet down and controlling the ball.

In comment 12632325 ray in arlington said:

Quote:

In comment 12632248 Mike in Philly said: Quote: You need to establish yourself as a runner IN THE FIELD OF PLAY. In the end zone you're not going to be a runner so, you should only need to establish possession in bounds. But, what do i know? 3-2-7 specifically says that the rule applies on the field of play and in the end zone.

actually it looks like you're talking about what the rule should be, not what it is, so that's another matter

is that it is clear that Beckham WAS a runner in the end zone. He caught the ball facing the QB. He was extending towards the QB. His move, first to the sideline, then toward the back of the end zone WAS the move of a runner. It happened during the catch, but when the ball was finally slapped out of his hands his two feet were down, his arms and head were extended nearly 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the QB - a move designed to keep the defender from disrupting the pass.

Here's the key quote from the rulebook regarding when a runner is established.

Quote:

A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

In no way does it suggest that a runner is one who SUCCESSFULLY avoids or wards off impending contact of an opponent. It is supposed to mean that the process of catching is complete and the receiver is now in the process of avoiding or warding off the contact.

If Beckham wasn't in clear possession of the ball he doesn't turn and extend his arms away from where he believes the defender is. The turning of his head, shoulders, body, and especially the arms was not an attempt to control the pass. It was a football move to avoid a defender and it should have established him as a runner, not a receiver.

Comparison with a runner crossing the goal line really isn't relevant given that the rule book clearly has two different rules for a runner crossing the line and a receiver catching a pass in the end zone. You can try to reconcile it but some attempts to do so have unintended consequences.

Secondly, the "football move" language (the actual language was "a move common to the game") was removed for 2015 and a definition of "becoming a runner" involving impending contact was added.

(The term "loose ball" is used in the rule book to describe a kick, pass or fumble - it is not what we usually think of as a "loose ball".)


" 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."

I don't think this works very well either, although the "long enough" language is gone. One could say that this covers the case where the receiver is all alone, as there is no impending contact.

and a receiver dives for the ball, catches it at a 45 degree angle, and drags his toes in the field of play, it's not a catch? Control before going out of bounds, two feet established, but not enough time to establish himself as a runner?

And once again, they still fail to explain how you establish yourself as a runner.

how a guy trying to get his two feet in and falling out of the end zone is capable of avoiding or warding off contact.

It's a can of worms.

In comment 12632375 Bramton1 said:

Quote:

and a receiver dives for the ball, catches it at a 45 degree angle, and drags his toes in the field of play, it's not a catch? Control before going out of bounds, two feet established, but not enough time to establish himself as a runner? And once again, they still fail to explain how you establish yourself as a runner.

I think we just had the same idea.

Methinks thou protest too much. That's you, Blandino.

Blandino's answer is pure bullshit and I'm sure he knows it.After his 2nd step, OBJ was at the out bounds line.What hi he supposed to do, make a "football move" out of bounds?Catch the ball and put 2 feet in bounds. Always has been enough.

there is a separate rule regarding "sideline catches" so maybe the "sideline catch" stuff supersedes this.

Knocking the ball from the hands of a receiver even after he has possession, is a basic part of pass defense. With all the other things taken from defenders, you can't also take that away in the end zone. Outside the end zone, you have a standard to determine if its a catch and fumble or incomplete, the football move. The NFL needs a standard in the end zone, and coming up with that is not easy. I suppose the 2 feet down and possession might work, but still seems to favor the offense.

Dean Blandino is a cool name.

...How exactly did Santonio Holmes establish himself as a runner in the endzone in SB 43?

In comment 12632481 Ginny Poo said:

Quote:

Dean Blandino is a cool name.

Really? No.

but I didn't think it was a touchdown either, sadly. He caught it, landed, and had it smacked out. In the spirit of the shitty rule it is not a TD IMO.

common sense NFL, common sense

In comment 12632566 GMenLTS said:

Quote:

common sense NFL, common sense

You think a guy with the name Dean Blandino has any common sense?

In comment 12632509 sb from NYT Forum said:

Quote:

...How exactly did Santonio Holmes establish himself as a runner in the endzone in SB 43?

a) The rules were different then
b) Their are specific rules in place if you are going to the ground as a result of the catch and specific rules for if you are going out of bounds when making a catch.

that's all that should be needed!? Very confusing rule. Too much left up to a refs subjectivity. If he just caught the ball with two feet in and fell out of bounds it would have been a TD and so why does a receiver have to hold it any longer in field of play?! Makes no sense.

for a catch are. Two feet plus control was a catch. Pretty simple. I don't recall the play or plays that made the league and rules committee make a change initially. But, the last couple of iterations, which are supposed to make things easier, add so much more subjectivity to what should be simple. Even with the new criteria, how is there not a separate interpretation or rule for catches made wholly in the end zone? Why the F do you have to establish yourself as a runner in the end zone? How long is enough? What is a football move inside the end zone? The only one I can think of is piking the damn ball.

It just keeps happening over and over. Teams like the Giants that can't afford mistakes end up being really hurt by the lack of good officiating. Poor officiating has likely cost the Giants at least two games this year, maybe even more.

it was bang-bang, another half second of possession and I think it stands.

Another stupid and senseless rule by the no fun league (NFL).

I still don't think it was a TD
giantgiantfan : 6:16 pm : link : reply
it was bang-bang, another half second of possession and I think it stands.


There is nothing in the rule stating how long you have to hold onto the ball.....how do you determine 1/2 second in the blink of an eye.....by stating if that second foot comes down, just as you loose the ball, or simultaneously, this eliminates any guessing as to how long the receiver had the ball, because if it is clearly batted out after that second foot is down, it should be a TD....under Blandino's "personal" interpretation, a receiver can come down with a pass with two feet, and if he doesn't move at all, a defender can come along a few seconds later and knock it out? Because, how long is long enough? You going to let a referee determine that? The simultaneous rule takes all the guess work out of it.....

[quote]...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... This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.[quote]

Isn't the NFL just inviting defenders to plaster receivers in the endzone to try to knock the ball loose? So much for trying to prevent player injuries.

In comment 12633282 sb from NYT Forum said:

Quote:

[quote]...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... This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.[quote] Isn't the NFL just inviting defenders to plaster receivers in the endzone to try to knock the ball loose? So much for trying to prevent player injuries.

Yes. I said the same thing in a thread yesterday.If I'm a catch this week I am schooling my players to clobber every receiver in the end zone, and anyone who reaches over the goal line with the ball to "break the plane"

has tainted my week!

To have a non-defined period of "time" which assuredly will be interpreted and applied inconsistently than having a clearly defined rule (two feet down) which can be clrealy and consistently be applied when it comes to bang bang plays in the end zone in determining whether a catch is a TD or not.

This league just cant get out of it's own way sometimes.

when he said there is no such thing as a runner in the end zone.

End of story. The ball crosses the line in hand, its a TD. The receiver has both hands on the ball and both feet down, its a TD.

This is the stupidest rule I've ever heard of and its infuriating to the point where I want to stop watching the NFL all together.

It's the wrong rule. As was said you don't have to become a runner in the end zone, hence the name..end zone, not start doing something with the football zone. The rule is stupid and has to be changed. If you can inch a football over the line or go out of bounds and reach inside the pylon to score why would you have to secure a ball and become a runner in the same zone?