The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
As much as I hate what the catch rules have become Â
I can tell you what Blandino will say, and it is consistent with the rule.
When a player catches the ball, they need two feet down and either "make a football move" or have time to make one if they drop the ball. That time is completely arbitrary which is a problem. That is true if it is in the field of play or in the end zone.
Beckham caught the ball and got two feet down, but the ball was swatted out of his hands instantly after the second foot came down. He did not "make a football move" or have time to do so after completing the catch. That's an incompletion.
Golden Tate caught the ball in the field of play, and then turned up field, which completed the catch. All he needed to do was break the plane of the end zone, and the play ended. That's a touchdown.
The rules suck, but the two calls are not inconsistent with one another.
The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
Yeah, but he's the head of officials and the chosen NFL spokesperson in regards to officiating, so he should get the heat.
The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
Sure, but consistency in how they were interpreted was supposed to be a point of emphasis this year. They emphasized that officials would be in contact with the "home base" (i.e. Blandino) during reviews just so things like this could be consistently enforced. How then is the Tate TD a TD and the Beckham play not? Especially considering that both plays had to be overturned. So how was the Tate play "conclusively" a TD, yet the Beckham play was "conclusively" incomplete?
The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
Sure, but consistency in how they were interpreted was supposed to be a point of emphasis this year. They emphasized that officials would be in contact with the "home base" (i.e. Blandino) during reviews just so things like this could be consistently enforced. How then is the Tate TD a TD and the Beckham play not? Especially considering that both plays had to be overturned. So how was the Tate play "conclusively" a TD, yet the Beckham play was "conclusively" incomplete?
Exactly. It was ruled a TD on the field. You're supposed to have CONCLUSIVE evidence, not subjective evidence, to overturn.
we have an issue on how it was intepreted though, Eddie.
Two officials felt it was a TD. It was called as such. And there wasn't conclusive video evidence to overturn.
So you have a perfect storm of:
- Ambiguously worded rule
- incorrect video review
- different interpretations between the Tate and Beckham catches
- A schmuck parading around to defend the call
that you have to "make a football move" in the end zone. For what purpose? Where are you going to run? You are already in the fucking end zone.
It has nothing to do with actually running somewhere. It was the league's attempt to establish whether the player held the ball long enough to be a catch, or whether he just got two hands on it.
The Tate catch and the Beckham drop were not the same. One guy (Tate) caught the ball and made a move, so it was a catch before he broke the plane of the end zone. Once the ball touched the stripe, the play ended. Beckham had did not hold the ball long enough to establish a catch. You can argue all day about how long you need to hold it, but that is the standard and it is completely judgmental.
What Blandino should address is why the refs in both situations couldn't judge what was a catch and what wasn't, and what the league is doing to correct this since it seems only Blandino and the New York office can define a catch.
Did they change the rules on the endzone catch recently? Â
I remember in 2005 in Seattle Shockey caught a pass and got both feet down but was absolutely blasted from behind and the ball immediately came out. The ruling after review was that he had both feet down with possession before the ball came out and it was the same bang-bang type play as the Beckham catch.
Yes, for some stupid reason they changed the rules... Â
I remember in 2005 in Seattle Shockey caught a pass and got both feet down but was absolutely blasted from behind and the ball immediately came out. The ruling after review was that he had both feet down with possession before the ball came out and it was the same bang-bang type play as the Beckham catch.
The "football move" language was a clarification added to explain why Dez Bryant's drop in Green Bay last year was in fact a drop. Before that it was something along the lines of "an act common to the game"
You know what's weird? I wasn't all that mad about it at first.... Â
we have an issue on how it was intepreted though, Eddie.
Two officials felt it was a TD. It was called as such. And there wasn't conclusive video evidence to overturn.
So you have a perfect storm of:
- Ambiguously worded rule
- incorrect video review
- different interpretations between the Tate and Beckham catches
- A schmuck parading around to defend the call
And I mostly agree with your criticisms on the officiating piece on this as you know. My comment was directed more toward those simply saying the rule is stupid or must be changed.
I would like to hear from Blandino what makes the two plays different and, what was the decisive evidence that justified overturning the judgement call on the field that our receiver had "become a runner" with control and both feet down?
As much as I hate what the catch rules have become
Mike from Ohio : 9:12 am : link : reply
I can tell you what Blandino will say, and it is consistent with the rule.
When a player catches the ball, they need two feet down and either "make a football move" or have time to make one if they drop the ball. That time is completely arbitrary which is a problem. That is true if it is in the field of play or in the end zone.
Beckham caught the ball and got two feet down, but the ball was swatted out of his hands instantly after the second foot came down. He did not "make a football move" or have time to do so after completing the catch. That's an incompletion.
So, why is the word "simultaneous" used in the rule? To eliminate any speculation as to how long they have to hold onto the ball......the rule states if the ball comes out BEFORE or SIMULTANEOUSLY(at the same time) as that second foot comes down, then it's an incompletion....if it comes out AFTER that foot is down, it should be a completion in the endzone.....the word simultaneous is there to set a time frame for a completion....once he has possession(there was no bobble at all), and then the first foot comes down, and then the second foot comes, it should make no difference whether the ball is knocked out, one tenth of a second later, or a whole second later, it should be a completion in the endzone.....as I say, over and over again, the simultaneous aspect of the rule makes it a catch.....and to add further indignation to this ruling, it was ruled a touchdown on the field, and as we all know, you have to have CONCLUSIVE video evidence to overturn a ruling on the field.....video evidence showed that OBj's second foot was on the ground, and that Butler's hand was still in front of OBj's helmet.....thus, the simultaneous portion of the rule, makes it a completion...that is why the wording is there, to take away the arbitrary guesswork, out of the hands of a referee, as to how long a ball has to be held.....because there is no such wording, in the rule, that gives a specific amount of time you have to hold onto the ball, to deem it a completion.....
And as someone had previously posted, you might see guys leveling receivers in the endzone now, maybe 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 2, 3, 4 seconds after a catch where the receiver does not make a football move, he just catches it and stands there, and according to Blandino, since there is NO TIME FRAME for how long a receiver must hold onto the ball, if he gets hit and the ball comes out, it's an incompletion after one or two seconds?.....the simultaneous part of the rule is there to eliminate that judgement...
The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
Yeah, but he's the head of officials and the chosen NFL spokesperson in regards to officiating, so he should get the heat.
Stealing Greg's material: always remember that this guy never officiated a game in his life.
In case you didn't see the broadcast of the Golden Tate "TD" Â
here it is. They brought out Mike Pereira to give him his opinion and he said it was definitely not a TD.
For the record, Pereira officiated football games for 14 years in NCAA and two years in the NFL before starting his rise into the NFL's officiating leadership. Blandino has never officiated a single game in NCAA or NFL.
one who didn't think it was a catch? im a defense guy, but to me, that ball was knocked away at the last possible moment and in the spirit of the game, that is not a catch. i wouldve been livid had the pats been given a TD on a play like that
one who didn't think it was a catch? im a defense guy, but to me, that ball was knocked away at the last possible moment and in the spirit of the game, that is not a catch. i wouldve been livid had the pats been given a TD on a play like that
somehow I truly believe the pats would have been given a TD
one who didn't think it was a catch? im a defense guy, but to me, that ball was knocked away at the last possible moment and in the spirit of the game, that is not a catch. i wouldve been livid had the pats been given a TD on a play like that
I also thought it was NOT a catch. But when the officials on the field met, discussed and signaled TD then I do not believe there was indisputable video evidence of it not being a TD. So the ref should have said the call stands. Not call is confirmed.
I was among those that did not think it was a catch at the time, and that couldn't believe they ruled it a TD; and it was patently clear to me in looking at the replays that it wasn't a catch under the rules.
I know this is a football fan site for discussing these things, but it just seems to me that a lot of you are eating your hearts out over this. Hey if you enjoy that kind of thing -- kinky -- more power to you.
one who didn't think it was a catch? im a defense guy, but to me, that ball was knocked away at the last possible moment and in the spirit of the game, that is not a catch. i wouldve been livid had the pats been given a TD on a play like that
I thought it was an incomplete pass, but I also thought the Tate TD should've been left as an INT. My main issue is the inconsistency between those 2 calls and seeing as the league office (Blandino) claimed the Tate TD was *correct*, I'm not sure how the Beckham TD was then overturned.
the officiating was poor, but I think the missed PI call on Miles White and missed chop block on Herzlich were even more egregious than the Beckham catch. I think the rule is garbage, but it's the rule...
shouldn't be a time aspect. When I look at the replay, I see two feet down. Two feet down should equal a catch when a player isn't going to the ground.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
The issue though is not if it was a catch or not Â
But instead if there was enough to overturn the ruling on the field. I know that sounds weird but understand that this was ruled a catch and a TD on the field. The only thing that could change that per the rules is "indisputable evidence"
By virtue of this being such a big debate and the fact that both HC's of the teams involved thought it was a catch, that pretty much tells you that there is no indisputable evidence for it to be overturned.
The other aspect that really bothered me was that the ball was knocked out halfway through the 3rd step, yet none of the announcers nor Carey (ex NFL ref) point that out, instead Carey actually says the ball is knocked out at the same time the second foot comes down. So if that is what he based his decision of no catch on, even though the video evidence shows its wrong, then really it never should have been overturned
I also thought it was NOT a catch. But when the officials on the field met, discussed and signaled TD then I do not believe there was indisputable video evidence of it not being a TD. So the ref should have said the call stands. Not call is confirmed.
I'm not going to get up in arms about this. The indisputable evidence is a thing of the past once the NFL instituted the box signaling when a play is being challenged or not. I guarantee you when the officials convened after the initial calling of incomplete they said lets call it a touchdown so that we get a chance to review it. I guarantee this happens in a lot of cases when a close call happens in a situation that requires the box to trigger a challenge. Under those scenarios when the initial call on the field was incomplete but only called a touchdown to trigger a challenge the NFL is not going to say the call stands on the field as a touchdown due to it being inconclusive; the field ref initially called it an incomplete pass. The NFL never officially acknowledges this, but I think this a big reason why they took the terminology out of their review of saying "insufficient video evidence" and now just announce it as the call on the field stands.
shouldn't be a time aspect. When I look at the replay, I see two feet down. Two feet down should equal a catch when a player isn't going to the ground.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
Exactly. Coughlin was right, there is no runner in the end zone
I also thought it was NOT a catch. But when the officials on the field met, discussed and signaled TD then I do not believe there was indisputable video evidence of it not being a TD. So the ref should have said the call stands. Not call is confirmed.
I'm not going to get up in arms about this. The indisputable evidence is a thing of the past once the NFL instituted the box signaling when a play is being challenged or not. I guarantee you when the officials convened after the initial calling of incomplete they said lets call it a touchdown so that we get a chance to review it. I guarantee this happens in a lot of cases when a close call happens in a situation that requires the box to trigger a challenge. Under those scenarios when the initial call on the field was incomplete but only called a touchdown to trigger a challenge the NFL is not going to say the call stands on the field as a touchdown due to it being inconclusive; the field ref initially called it an incomplete pass. The NFL never officially acknowledges this, but I think this a big reason why they took the terminology out of their review of saying "insufficient video evidence" and now just announce it as the call on the field stands.
That does make some sense. Now considering that did you think there was enough to overturn it? See that is where I am having issues with it
shouldn't be a time aspect. When I look at the replay, I see two feet down. Two feet down should equal a catch when a player isn't going to the ground.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
Exactly. Coughlin was right, there is no runner in the end zone
If you'all and Coughlin are right about this -- then there needs to be a rule change -- and in that case you are not right -- until you are right
That does make some sense. Now considering that did you think there was enough to overturn it? See that is where I am having issues with it
That's my point; I dont think they were overturning it. The call on the field in the officials eyes was incomplete; they only called it TD to trigger the review. In that circumstance I don't think Hochulli would want to say its inconclusive, touchdown stands when the officials called it incomplete and only changed the ruling to a TD in order to trigger the officials review.
because a receiver is in the end zone already, and must establish possession. He did have both feet down, and that is not even an issue here. He did also catch the ball cleanly, however, the debate is about the length of time he held it after it got knocked out. IMO, the rule MUST be changed, as it's entirely too subjective and it's often a critical play too. Two feet down catch it cleanly, end of story. Just like someone breaking the plain. As soon as it's caught with both feet down, the receiver has essentially completed the same act as breaking the plain.
The length of time he held on to the ball is the worst argument one could have.
Let's talk about the hands. OBJ high points the ball with both hands and NEVER loses control of the ball.
Feet: He has the right foot land while bringing the ball into his torso and the left foot land while starting to extend the ball.
The video can be paused showing 2 feet, 100% control of the ball prior to the slap at the arm by Butler. The call on the field was touchdown, the video showed that the foot hit before the ball came out. End of story.
They have the technology to prove this yet they overturned the call. It is complete bullshit.
it was one of those inconsistent subjective calls that could go either way. But I'll tell you what. If it was the Patriots would didn't get the TD call in that situation Pats fans would be still going out of their mind if they lost and ended up 8-1.I live in New England I would never hear the end of it. I still hear about the "helmet catch". Some going as far as to say it wasn't a catch. That Tyree hadn't caught a pass in two months. I have to remind them that Tyree also caught a Touchdown pass that game. They don't bring up the lucky interception last year.
I'm not going to get up in arms about this. The indisputable evidence is a thing of the past once the NFL instituted the box signaling when a play is being challenged or not. I guarantee you when the officials convened after the initial calling of incomplete they said lets call it a touchdown so that we get a chance to review it. I guarantee this happens in a lot of cases when a close call happens in a situation that requires the box to trigger a challenge. Under those scenarios when the initial call on the field was incomplete but only called a touchdown to trigger a challenge the NFL is not going to say the call stands on the field as a touchdown due to it being inconclusive; the field ref initially called it an incomplete pass. The NFL never officially acknowledges this, but I think this a big reason why they took the terminology out of their review of saying "insufficient video evidence" and now just announce it as the call on the field stands.
Steve, that's a very interesting perspective and may be true. I could see them hedging responsibility by calling scores to prompt reviews, even when, left alone, they would have said no score. Not how it's supposed to work, but it's quite plausible given human nature.
Brought up an excellent point: when someone runs for a touchdown and dives, the ball only needs to break the plane of the goal line and the play is over regardless if the runner losses the ball when he hits the ground. In the end zone, I think control+two get down, play should be over as soon as both feet are on the ground.
we have an issue on how it was intepreted though, Eddie.
Two officials felt it was a TD. It was called as such. And there wasn't conclusive video evidence to overturn.
So you have a perfect storm of:
- Ambiguously worded rule
- incorrect video review
- different interpretations between the Tate and Beckham catches
- A schmuck parading around to defend the call
And I mostly agree with your criticisms on the officiating piece on this as you know. My comment was directed more toward those simply saying the rule is stupid or must be changed.
I would like to hear from Blandino what makes the two plays different and, what was the decisive evidence that justified overturning the judgement call on the field that our receiver had "become a runner" with control and both feet down?
I think even if they want to keep the rules in place, there should be modified or different rules for catches made entirely in the end zone (or at least where the ball is entirely across the plane the whole time). There should be no requirement to "make a football move" or have time to do so.
I have a hard time saying it was a catch. And I agree that the refs agreed to call it a TD in order to generate a review.
When I see it in real time, I have a hard time saying it isn't. And, think about this. Two different officials ruled it a TD based on watching in real time.
shouldn't be a time aspect. When I look at the replay, I see two feet down. Two feet down should equal a catch when a player isn't going to the ground.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
I have been saying that repeatedly all week. This should especially be the case for a catch made in the end zone.
Why is there replay?
Rjanyg : 1:28 pm : link : reply
The length of time he held on to the ball is the worst argument one could have.
Let's talk about the hands. OBJ high points the ball with both hands and NEVER loses control of the ball.
Feet: He has the right foot land while bringing the ball into his torso and the left foot land while starting to extend the ball.
The video can be paused showing 2 feet, 100% control of the ball prior to the slap at the arm by Butler. The call on the field was touchdown, the video showed that the foot hit before the ball came out.
Actually, the video, does you one better......it shows his foot touches, and Butler hasn't even touched the ball yet....in fact, his hand is by OBj's face, when the second foot comes down....
RE: Here's the problem with any rule book...be it NFL, NBA Â
but the more I thought about it, and the more and more I think about how effed up the rules are, it makes me angry.
They need to fix this. The Beckham catch/non-catch isn't the point.
OVERALL, they need to fix this now!
the real problem is that even the officials on the field are not all on the same page with it and call it differently and that definitely has to be fixed.....
Too many judgement calls on every play.
I personally think the Beckham play was called correctly (per the rules), but it's impossible to justify in light of the Tate TD.
I personally think the Beckham play was called correctly (per the rules), but it's impossible to justify in light of the Tate TD.
I tweeted to Bob and asked him to please bring up that play specifically, and to address Coughlin's comparison from Francessa earlier this week.
When a player catches the ball, they need two feet down and either "make a football move" or have time to make one if they drop the ball. That time is completely arbitrary which is a problem. That is true if it is in the field of play or in the end zone.
Beckham caught the ball and got two feet down, but the ball was swatted out of his hands instantly after the second foot came down. He did not "make a football move" or have time to do so after completing the catch. That's an incompletion.
Golden Tate caught the ball in the field of play, and then turned up field, which completed the catch. All he needed to do was break the plane of the end zone, and the play ended. That's a touchdown.
The rules suck, but the two calls are not inconsistent with one another.
Yeah, but he's the head of officials and the chosen NFL spokesperson in regards to officiating, so he should get the heat.
Sure, but consistency in how they were interpreted was supposed to be a point of emphasis this year. They emphasized that officials would be in contact with the "home base" (i.e. Blandino) during reviews just so things like this could be consistently enforced. How then is the Tate TD a TD and the Beckham play not? Especially considering that both plays had to be overturned. So how was the Tate play "conclusively" a TD, yet the Beckham play was "conclusively" incomplete?
Quote:
The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
Sure, but consistency in how they were interpreted was supposed to be a point of emphasis this year. They emphasized that officials would be in contact with the "home base" (i.e. Blandino) during reviews just so things like this could be consistently enforced. How then is the Tate TD a TD and the Beckham play not? Especially considering that both plays had to be overturned. So how was the Tate play "conclusively" a TD, yet the Beckham play was "conclusively" incomplete?
Exactly. It was ruled a TD on the field. You're supposed to have CONCLUSIVE evidence, not subjective evidence, to overturn.
Two officials felt it was a TD. It was called as such. And there wasn't conclusive video evidence to overturn.
So you have a perfect storm of:
- Ambiguously worded rule
- incorrect video review
- different interpretations between the Tate and Beckham catches
- A schmuck parading around to defend the call
TC and BB can do circles around him, I'm sure there are many others.
That should not be.
Rules should be simple, common sense but common sense does not rule the NFL any longer.
It has nothing to do with actually running somewhere. It was the league's attempt to establish whether the player held the ball long enough to be a catch, or whether he just got two hands on it.
The Tate catch and the Beckham drop were not the same. One guy (Tate) caught the ball and made a move, so it was a catch before he broke the plane of the end zone. Once the ball touched the stripe, the play ended. Beckham had did not hold the ball long enough to establish a catch. You can argue all day about how long you need to hold it, but that is the standard and it is completely judgmental.
What Blandino should address is why the refs in both situations couldn't judge what was a catch and what wasn't, and what the league is doing to correct this since it seems only Blandino and the New York office can define a catch.
The "football move" language was a clarification added to explain why Dez Bryant's drop in Green Bay last year was in fact a drop. Before that it was something along the lines of "an act common to the game"
They need to fix this. The Beckham catch/non-catch isn't the point.
OVERALL, they need to fix this now!
He held the ball as long as Tate did.
According to Tom Coughlin, yes.
Two officials felt it was a TD. It was called as such. And there wasn't conclusive video evidence to overturn.
So you have a perfect storm of:
- Ambiguously worded rule
- incorrect video review
- different interpretations between the Tate and Beckham catches
- A schmuck parading around to defend the call
And I mostly agree with your criticisms on the officiating piece on this as you know. My comment was directed more toward those simply saying the rule is stupid or must be changed.
I would like to hear from Blandino what makes the two plays different and, what was the decisive evidence that justified overturning the judgement call on the field that our receiver had "become a runner" with control and both feet down?
Mike from Ohio : 9:12 am : link : reply
I can tell you what Blandino will say, and it is consistent with the rule.
When a player catches the ball, they need two feet down and either "make a football move" or have time to make one if they drop the ball. That time is completely arbitrary which is a problem. That is true if it is in the field of play or in the end zone.
Beckham caught the ball and got two feet down, but the ball was swatted out of his hands instantly after the second foot came down. He did not "make a football move" or have time to do so after completing the catch. That's an incompletion.
So, why is the word "simultaneous" used in the rule? To eliminate any speculation as to how long they have to hold onto the ball......the rule states if the ball comes out BEFORE or SIMULTANEOUSLY(at the same time) as that second foot comes down, then it's an incompletion....if it comes out AFTER that foot is down, it should be a completion in the endzone.....the word simultaneous is there to set a time frame for a completion....once he has possession(there was no bobble at all), and then the first foot comes down, and then the second foot comes, it should make no difference whether the ball is knocked out, one tenth of a second later, or a whole second later, it should be a completion in the endzone.....as I say, over and over again, the simultaneous aspect of the rule makes it a catch.....and to add further indignation to this ruling, it was ruled a touchdown on the field, and as we all know, you have to have CONCLUSIVE video evidence to overturn a ruling on the field.....video evidence showed that OBj's second foot was on the ground, and that Butler's hand was still in front of OBj's helmet.....thus, the simultaneous portion of the rule, makes it a completion...that is why the wording is there, to take away the arbitrary guesswork, out of the hands of a referee, as to how long a ball has to be held.....because there is no such wording, in the rule, that gives a specific amount of time you have to hold onto the ball, to deem it a completion.....
And as someone had previously posted, you might see guys leveling receivers in the endzone now, maybe 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 2, 3, 4 seconds after a catch where the receiver does not make a football move, he just catches it and stands there, and according to Blandino, since there is NO TIME FRAME for how long a receiver must hold onto the ball, if he gets hit and the ball comes out, it's an incompletion after one or two seconds?.....the simultaneous part of the rule is there to eliminate that judgement...
Quote:
The officials don't write the rules, they interpret and enforce them. If you think the rules need to be changed, take it up with the team owners and their competition committee.
Yeah, but he's the head of officials and the chosen NFL spokesperson in regards to officiating, so he should get the heat.
Stealing Greg's material: always remember that this guy never officiated a game in his life.
For the record, Pereira officiated football games for 14 years in NCAA and two years in the NFL before starting his rise into the NFL's officiating leadership. Blandino has never officiated a single game in NCAA or NFL.
somehow I truly believe the pats would have been given a TD
I also thought it was NOT a catch. But when the officials on the field met, discussed and signaled TD then I do not believe there was indisputable video evidence of it not being a TD. So the ref should have said the call stands. Not call is confirmed.
I was among those that did not think it was a catch at the time, and that couldn't believe they ruled it a TD; and it was patently clear to me in looking at the replays that it wasn't a catch under the rules.
I know this is a football fan site for discussing these things, but it just seems to me that a lot of you are eating your hearts out over this. Hey if you enjoy that kind of thing -- kinky -- more power to you.
I thought it was an incomplete pass, but I also thought the Tate TD should've been left as an INT. My main issue is the inconsistency between those 2 calls and seeing as the league office (Blandino) claimed the Tate TD was *correct*, I'm not sure how the Beckham TD was then overturned.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
By virtue of this being such a big debate and the fact that both HC's of the teams involved thought it was a catch, that pretty much tells you that there is no indisputable evidence for it to be overturned.
The other aspect that really bothered me was that the ball was knocked out halfway through the 3rd step, yet none of the announcers nor Carey (ex NFL ref) point that out, instead Carey actually says the ball is knocked out at the same time the second foot comes down. So if that is what he based his decision of no catch on, even though the video evidence shows its wrong, then really it never should have been overturned
If you could just define 'long enough' we'll be done here.
Quote:
I also thought it was NOT a catch. But when the officials on the field met, discussed and signaled TD then I do not believe there was indisputable video evidence of it not being a TD. So the ref should have said the call stands. Not call is confirmed.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
Exactly. Coughlin was right, there is no runner in the end zone
Quote:
In comment 12635637 area junc said:
Quote:
I also thought it was NOT a catch. But when the officials on the field met, discussed and signaled TD then I do not believe there was indisputable video evidence of it not being a TD. So the ref should have said the call stands. Not call is confirmed.
I'm not going to get up in arms about this. The indisputable evidence is a thing of the past once the NFL instituted the box signaling when a play is being challenged or not. I guarantee you when the officials convened after the initial calling of incomplete they said lets call it a touchdown so that we get a chance to review it. I guarantee this happens in a lot of cases when a close call happens in a situation that requires the box to trigger a challenge. Under those scenarios when the initial call on the field was incomplete but only called a touchdown to trigger a challenge the NFL is not going to say the call stands on the field as a touchdown due to it being inconclusive; the field ref initially called it an incomplete pass. The NFL never officially acknowledges this, but I think this a big reason why they took the terminology out of their review of saying "insufficient video evidence" and now just announce it as the call on the field stands.
That does make some sense. Now considering that did you think there was enough to overturn it? See that is where I am having issues with it
Quote:
shouldn't be a time aspect. When I look at the replay, I see two feet down. Two feet down should equal a catch when a player isn't going to the ground.
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
Exactly. Coughlin was right, there is no runner in the end zone
If you'all and Coughlin are right about this -- then there needs to be a rule change -- and in that case you are not right -- until you are right
Let's talk about the hands. OBJ high points the ball with both hands and NEVER loses control of the ball.
Feet: He has the right foot land while bringing the ball into his torso and the left foot land while starting to extend the ball.
The video can be paused showing 2 feet, 100% control of the ball prior to the slap at the arm by Butler. The call on the field was touchdown, the video showed that the foot hit before the ball came out. End of story.
They have the technology to prove this yet they overturned the call. It is complete bullshit.
yes, did anyone actually hear the interview?
It used to be on BBI that a bunch of people would be available to transcribe. Now, not so much, I guess.
I'm not going to get up in arms about this. The indisputable evidence is a thing of the past once the NFL instituted the box signaling when a play is being challenged or not. I guarantee you when the officials convened after the initial calling of incomplete they said lets call it a touchdown so that we get a chance to review it. I guarantee this happens in a lot of cases when a close call happens in a situation that requires the box to trigger a challenge. Under those scenarios when the initial call on the field was incomplete but only called a touchdown to trigger a challenge the NFL is not going to say the call stands on the field as a touchdown due to it being inconclusive; the field ref initially called it an incomplete pass. The NFL never officially acknowledges this, but I think this a big reason why they took the terminology out of their review of saying "insufficient video evidence" and now just announce it as the call on the field stands.
Steve, that's a very interesting perspective and may be true. I could see them hedging responsibility by calling scores to prompt reviews, even when, left alone, they would have said no score. Not how it's supposed to work, but it's quite plausible given human nature.
Quote:
Beckham had did not hold the ball long enough to establish a catch
He held the ball as long as Tate did.
Quote:
we have an issue on how it was intepreted though, Eddie.
Two officials felt it was a TD. It was called as such. And there wasn't conclusive video evidence to overturn.
So you have a perfect storm of:
- Ambiguously worded rule
- incorrect video review
- different interpretations between the Tate and Beckham catches
- A schmuck parading around to defend the call
And I mostly agree with your criticisms on the officiating piece on this as you know. My comment was directed more toward those simply saying the rule is stupid or must be changed.
I would like to hear from Blandino what makes the two plays different and, what was the decisive evidence that justified overturning the judgement call on the field that our receiver had "become a runner" with control and both feet down?
Simplify interpretation, don't give some subjective time constraint.
Rjanyg : 1:28 pm : link : reply
The length of time he held on to the ball is the worst argument one could have.
Let's talk about the hands. OBJ high points the ball with both hands and NEVER loses control of the ball.
Feet: He has the right foot land while bringing the ball into his torso and the left foot land while starting to extend the ball.
The video can be paused showing 2 feet, 100% control of the ball prior to the slap at the arm by Butler. The call on the field was touchdown, the video showed that the foot hit before the ball came out.
Actually, the video, does you one better......it shows his foot touches, and Butler hasn't even touched the ball yet....in fact, his hand is by OBj's face, when the second foot comes down....
Rules should be simple, common sense but common sense does not rule the NFL any longer.
we need to simplify this rule and go back to what it used to be, possession in the end zone=TD
They need to fix this. The Beckham catch/non-catch isn't the point.
OVERALL, they need to fix this now!
the real problem is that even the officials on the field are not all on the same page with it and call it differently and that definitely has to be fixed.....