Will that TD call get These Refs Fired??

In comment 13660782 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Not nearly as egregious as it is being made out to be here. It's just more excuse making. There is so much fucking excuse making with this team.

I don't think anyone is saying we lost because of it. Take a step back from rooting for the Giants and assess the call, the Jets call last week, and countless others. This thread isn't about the Giants.

In comment 13660782 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Not nearly as egregious as it is being made out to be here. It's just more excuse making. There is so much fucking excuse making with this team.

50/50 call that the ref 30 yards away with no angle or proximity to the play called without a doubt making the replay inconsequential.

NFL is must watch shit.

he clearly comes down without possession and they are fighting for posession while his foot hits out of bounds. Are we watching the same thing?

is reviewed and they don't determine there was:
- a bobble
- two feet landing out of bound while attempting to gain possession
- final possession with Collins
- No dual possession

Then the system is broken. Compare this to the Jets play last week and the inconsistencies are shocking. And the rules of maintaining the catch through the ground are malleable.

“The receiver went into the air, had control of the ball, lost control, re-grasped the ball, and at the same time he did, the defender grabbed the ball, also,” Corrente told a pool reporter. “They went to the ground simultaneously with the football. Then they started a little wrestling match. It’s over now. That catch is established because if the defender was to pull the ball out of his hands now, it’s still a catch because the defender has a second action. So at that point, when they were on the ground together and they’re tussling to begin with, the catch is over. That’s the touchdown. Now, after that is when he rolled over and we don’t have any clear view of, quote unquote, anything happening after that. So that’s where it stands.”
F'in BS!! - ( New Window )

Yes this point is taken that the rules and the refs have slid so much that we expect a call like this every game. Abominable.

Par for course in today's NFL. I'm not as offended by this terrible call because there are so many like this!

The NFL went through popularity upswing from the 70s to about 2-3 years ago. But the horrendous caliber of play and terrible game calls, items in the making due to rules implemented over the last decade or so, have just about ruined it for me.

I wonder if I will be as into the Giants in the future or just relegate myself to 'NFL historian' status because investing in this poorly officiated terrible product doesn't seem worthwhile.

the company line, Corrente really could've talked about them missing the call instead of defending it.

It isn't simultaneous possession when the defender has the ball in his chest. We had two plays go against our WR's in similar plays in the past two years. One to Shepard and one to Lewis.

Both times the ruling was the defender came down with the ball.

I don't think Richardson at any time possessed the ball since Collins clearly had two hands on the ball cradled once it bobbles after they hit the ground.

Terrible call and even worse job by Corrente trying to defend it.

I'd like to know why they didn't call it a TD until Collins clearly has it. At that point, what evidence exists that Richardson caught the ball?

if what he's saying is true, why wasn't it called a TD sooner by the official standing closest to the play? That was conceivably when "it was over", as Corrente says. Instead, an official ran from 25 yards away... doesn't make the call right away, examines what's happening between the 2 players, and only then calls it a TD despite the WR standing out of bounds.

on the spot are excused for the call, how does replay not overturn it, especially given the reversal seen in the Jets-Pats game the week prior?

If that replay saw a bobble and a fumble out of bounds, how does replay miss a bobble and a player landing out of bounds? It really is an inexcusable miss and is exactly the type of play that replay is supposed to ensure doesn't happen - a scoring play that really isn't one.

It is so arbitrary that no one can call it consistently. Anywhere else in the field of play where a player catches a pass and loses possession when falling to the ground, it is a completed pass and down by contact. Why the hell is there a different standard in the end zone? Why doesn't that standard apply to ball carriers as well?

I will agree that the Seattle WR, bobbled the ball, and never had control or full possession. Collins pulled the ball away and was inbounds with possession of the football.

Good Job-

D played very well first half, only to see brain dead O each and every series.At some point, instead of PDs and tackles, they start looking for ints and to force fumbles. Which is a higher risk proposition.

in better position to have handled the ball in a jump ball, disputed call or dual possession type play. The refs didn't have clear line of sight so they made a slow decision to make a quick call once looking at dual possession on the ground. Ignore the out of bounds crap as his feet were bouncing on and off the out if bounds area.

In other words, not an easy call, and it's not like the refs make easy calls turn into slam dunks.

We were never going to win this game and therefore we shouldn't care. Unless of course you just want to make the NFL world a better place, and then I will concede YES-NFL OFFICIATING SHOULD BE BETTER!

WHATEVER...

had the ball pinned to his chest when the action was on the ground. If that is dual possession or if the refs ever saw it as dual possession they were wrong, and they didn't signal the TD until Collins was the only one in control.

We have no idea what a replay review looked at, but if it didn't try to determine where the receiver's feet were while trying to gain possession of the ball and it didn't see the ball jar loose when the player's hit the ground, and if it didn't see Collins in firm control, then it failed.

Especially since we are one week removed from having replay overturn a TD by a Jets player with far less evidence.

The system is broken and the refs are only consistent in one area - their inconsistency of getting calls right. But then again, for somebody who keeps ending his posts with "whatever..." you sure seem interested in coming back and saying it was the right call......

the call wasn't talked about again by the national media once Monday was over. There was an article in the New York Post Monday and that's about it.

in the endzone he has his hands secured on the ball which is simply a touchdown.

Everything else mentioned...Collins with his hands on the ball too, Richardson going out of bounds; Collins winding up with ball in the end; the refs coming in late; the refs staring at the pile before signalling touchdown is all true. However it doesn't change the fact of my first sentence above.

The refs made the right call...

specifically the "at some point" comment. The rule was changed several years ago regarding maintaining control after hitting the ground. It still applies whether or not it is a dual possession situation.

It is the same rule the Shepard TD was nullified on as well as many others including the Sefarian-Jenkins call a week prior

Once Richardson hit the ground and the ball wasn't completely secured, he needed to establish control in bounds. He didn't.

The debate isn't about if it was the right call - it should be why did a similar call get replacement refs fired (and a feature on the cover of SI and this isn't even debated after Monday?

The regular refs came back and restored order!!!

you can see the part bolded below - and this is directly from a recap of the replacement ref blunder:

Quote:

Until this debacle between the Packers and Seahawks, the replacement officials were a nuisance, a punch line. They had not, aside from some randomly incorrect calls here and there, directly impacted a game's outcome. And then Monday's final play happened. With the Seahawks down five and the clock ticking to zero, Russell Wilson scrambled around and heaved one to the end zone. Golden Tate, who earlier had two potential TD passes slip out of his hands, shoved a defender to the ground and then leaped into the air. Green Bay's M.D. Jennings beat him to the punch, plucking Wilson's pass from the pile and tumbling to the ground. Tate, in an act of desperation, reached around Jennings to put his hands on the ball too. To just about everyone watching, including one of the officials on the field, it was a clear interception. But the call? Touchdown. Seattle wins. Destiny is one thing. This was highway robbery. The play was reviewed -- normally, the ruling that Tate and Jennings had simultaneously possessed the football, resulting in a catch is not reviewable; however, the circumstances are different in the end zone, which the NFL confirmed in a statement Monday afternoon: "In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone. Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood." And here's how the NFL explains simultaneous possession in its rule book: "If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers," the rule states. "It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control."

In comment 13664902 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

specifically the "at some point" comment. The rule was changed several years ago regarding maintaining control after hitting the ground. It still applies whether or not it is a dual possession situation. It is the same rule the Shepard TD was nullified on as well as many others including the Sefarian-Jenkins call a week prior Once Richardson hit the ground and the ball wasn't completely secured, he needed to establish control in bounds. He didn't. The debate isn't about if it was the right call - it should be why did a similar call get replacement refs fired (and a feature on the cover of SI and this isn't even debated after Monday? The regular refs came back and restored order!!!

Simple. It wasn’t discussed because we suck. If we were 6-0 and chasing their perfect season they would have made some noise. But since we suck and nobody was watching the league and media figured they were safe and didn’t need to address the issue. I mean why would them or the media want to pile on to what is already a league that is in decline for the first time in recent history? Bad press could further damage the leagues image and they weren’t going to bring it to light when the team on the receiving end isn’t going anywhere this season.

The Patriots are the flagship team of the nfl which is why people paid attention last week. It made it news worthy.

while he hit the ground in the endzone. While he hit the ground Collins got his hands on it the ball too and ultimately pulled it away in the scuffle.

Touchdown Richardson. The other stuff doesn't matter...

and we suck...

you are either being intentionally obtuse or you watched a different play.

At no point after hitting the ground did Richardson possess the ball.

Let's look at the rulebook.

1. The NFL's own definition of a catch says:

Quote:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: 1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and 2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and 3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2). Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

So let's see, did this qualify as a catch?
1. Did he secure control of the ball in his hands? Tough to say, perhaps at some point the refs could say that he had the ball secured in his hands. Consider this one met perhaps.

2. Did he touch the ground inbounds? Absolutely - when he came to the ground he was on his back in the end zone.

3. Did he maintain control after the first two things have occurred long enough to clearly become a runner? Well, he wasn't capable of warding off impending contact. He didn't tuck the ball away. He didn't turn upfield or take additional steps.

Now, by that very clear definition there is no way one could conclude that he made a catch. Possible that he did the first two, but not possible that he did the third.

What does the NFL say about simultaneous catches?

Quote:

If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers.

So, was the pass caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents? Sure.

Did both players retain it? No, not really. One spun out of bounds and clearly lost possession of the ball.

Finally, there is a note about uncertainty in declaring a catch. Here's what it says:

Quote:

Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

This means that the only way it can be called a completion is that there had to be complete certainty that the receiver had satisfied all three elements required of a catch, as well as that of a simultaneous catch.

As B in Alb - the official 30 yards away waited until AFTER possession was established by the defense to signal a TD. How is that certainty? At most, uncertainty could be claimed and an incompletion ruled. If there was any certainty about which of the two receivers completed all three requirements of a catch it would have had to be the one who remained in bounds and ended up with the ball, establishing himself as a runner.

The refs used their judgement, and FMiC is right to continue to point out the bad judgement that it was.

and the 3rd may be disputed but it also disputed that Collins had retained it solely himself. So simultaneously catch goes to the Offense in the refs view.

Touchdown...