Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

Can't find a thread on Lewis's catch being a TD

lawguy9801 : 11/20/2017 9:38 am
(Couldn't find anything on a search, if there is a thread on this please link and I'll delete)

Lewis was not touched during or after the process of catching that pass. He got up and scored a TD without being touched. If Rosas had shanked that FG and the Giants tied or lost, we would all be up in arms that the call wasn't reversed after a replay review.
The refs..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 11/20/2017 9:39 am : link
were pretty bad yesterday. Yes, we won, but there were a lot of questionable calls and rulings.
I thought it was a TD as well  
cjac : 11/20/2017 9:41 am : link
I think they got that wrong
he was touched before he had control of the ball  
I Love Clams Casino : 11/20/2017 9:41 am : link
but not after -

Is that a TD?

Me thinks so
should have been. NFL must have assigned Andrea Bocelli as back judge  
Victor in CT : 11/20/2017 9:41 am : link
and Stevie Wonder as the replay official.

He was hit BEFORE he caught the ball which drew the flag, but was never touched after he caught it.
RE: The refs..  
lawguy9801 : 11/20/2017 9:42 am : link
In comment 13698844 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
were pretty bad yesterday. Yes, we won, but there were a lot of questionable calls and rulings.


I don't even blame the refs as it likely was very hard to discern live, but replay clearly showed he was not touched. Not sure why no one made a bigger deal of this at the time.
play  
giantfan2000 : 11/20/2017 9:42 am : link
if you look at replay the Defensive player still is holding his arm just went ball gets into lewis 's hands

I think in OT all plays are reviewed automatically

but I agree that Lewis didn't have control and complete the process of catching the ball until after he was out of grip of defensive player

it should have been TD
I thought the same thing initially,  
Section331 : 11/20/2017 9:43 am : link
but if you watch the replay, the DB's fingers were on Lewis's arm as he caught the ball on the ground. It was the right call.
.  
Danny Kanell : 11/20/2017 9:43 am : link
It was a touchdown.
Is anyone technologically savvy enough...  
lawguy9801 : 11/20/2017 9:44 am : link
...to post a gif?
clearly being touched  
GiantNatty : 11/20/2017 9:45 am : link
at the time he secured the ball - not by much, but it was clear. down by contact.

still, heady play for him to get up and run into the endzone...
...  
christian : 11/20/2017 9:47 am : link
It was logically a TD. Or the ball should have been placed where he was "touched" down a few yards beforehand.

I don't blame the ref, it was a hard play to call. But what's the point of replay in OT if you can't catch that play?
Just played it on my phone  
Keith : 11/20/2017 9:50 am : link
and paused it the second he has the ball(secured it immediately) and the defenders hand is on Lewis' arm. Down by contact, but it's close.
And why  
NYBEN1963 : 11/20/2017 9:50 am : link
place the ball at the 2 yard line?If he was down by contact the contact was at the 6 not the 2
I have more questions about the spot  
Ben in Tampa : 11/20/2017 9:52 am : link
Not rather or not it was a TD. I believe he was down by contact just barely, but how did the ball end up on the 2?
Don't forget...  
jnoble : 11/20/2017 9:52 am : link
That OPI on Engram wiping out a big gain was *total* BS too. He put out his arm during his route at one point but he didn't push or shove the defender off him at all
I don't know how to do a screen shot  
lawguy9801 : 11/20/2017 9:55 am : link
There may be one infintesimal instant of time where the DB was touching him as the ball went to his arms - but I still don't think he had completed the catch at that point.
Link - ( New Window )
I don't really know what "down by contact" means,  
CT Charlie : 11/20/2017 9:55 am : link
and whether it's in the rulebook per se, but:

1) he was down when the defender made contact with him, and
2) he did not re-establish being "up" prior to securing the catch, so
3) there's a good chance it was the right call.

I have no idea why the ball was spotted where it was, but the crew also screwed up -- by four yards -- on another spot.
And yes  
lawguy9801 : 11/20/2017 9:57 am : link
if he was down by contact, ball should have been at the 6, not the 2.
Methinks  
mrvax : 11/20/2017 10:00 am : link
the refs got the 40+ yard Rudolph non-catch in the 3rd quarter wrong (deep left side). I have no idea why it was not challenged.
RE: Methinks  
Section331 : 11/20/2017 10:03 am : link
In comment 13698905 mrvax said:
Quote:
the refs got the 40+ yard Rudolph non-catch in the 3rd quarter wrong (deep left side). I have no idea why it was not challenged.


I thought so too, it was at the very least worth a challenge. I was impressed by Rudolph yesterday.

And I have no idea why the ball was placed at the 2. Even a generous spot puts the ball on the 5. There was a flag on the play, which I thought was for DPI, maybe it was a PF penalty?
it was close for sure  
LG in NYC : 11/20/2017 10:04 am : link
you could make a case it was a TD but it was not exactly an egregious call.

probably why there was no thread.
It look like it was a clear TD to me  
ZogZerg : 11/20/2017 10:06 am : link
He didn't have possession until after the contact.
Lewis had control the second  
Keith : 11/20/2017 10:08 am : link
it touched his arms. Never bobbled it. If you pause that video at 36 seconds, you can see the catch and the defender with his hand on Lewis' arm. The issue was the spot.
Great catch but he was down at the six. Defender touching  
bumpsinthenight : 11/20/2017 10:26 am : link
as he gains possession with 'both' hands. Close but correct call. Now the spot is an issue.

I gues the refs  
NYBEN1963 : 11/20/2017 10:56 am : link
could not decide on down by contact at the 6 or a TD so the split the difference and gave them the ball at the 2 (half joking)
RE: he was touched before he had control of the ball  
NNJ Tom : 11/20/2017 11:05 am : link
In comment 13698848 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
but not after -

Is that a TD?

Me thinks so


^^^^^^
This
Bang bang play  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 11/20/2017 11:43 am : link
The problem with this play is less about the ruling and more about the spot. It was a bang bang play that was ruled one way on the field (No TD). I didn't see a replay that clearly showed whether or not he was touched before or after completing the catch. I personally feel like the defender was contacting him as he caught the ball, but I can definitely see an argument the other way as well. It's really close.

The problem, however, is that there are only two possible results. Either Lewis is:
A) Down at the 6 or
B) Not down and scored a TD

Placing the ball down at the 2 makes absolutely no sense in the context of the play. Lewis rolls away from the defender at the 6 and is not contacted again. How could the ball be placed at the 2? It makes literally no sense.
He was touched while on the ground with control  
BigBlue4You09 : 11/20/2017 11:51 am : link
Therefore he's down
He never bobbled the ball, and he was being touched  
Section331 : 11/20/2017 11:56 am : link
as he caught it, thus, down by contact. Again, don't know what the deal was with the spot. ESPN play-by-play says a DPI was declined, so I have no idea why the ball was placed at the 2.
RE: I thought the same thing initially,  
Gatorade Dunk : 11/20/2017 11:59 am : link
In comment 13698855 Section331 said:
Quote:
but if you watch the replay, the DB's fingers were on Lewis's arm as he caught the ball on the ground. It was the right call.

If the ball had squirted out after the defender let him go, the refs would have almost certainly called it incomplete as the catch was not completed. IMO, the rules should be consistent. Whatever the criteria is for determining a catch, the down-by-contact needs to occur at/after that moment. It can't be that the defender gets the benefit of having touched him as he receives the ball but the offensive player has additional requirements to perform after that point. That doesn't make any logical sense.
The refs were questionable yesterday, but not on this one  
Matt M. : 11/20/2017 12:01 pm : link
He was downed by contact.
RE: Great catch but he was down at the six. Defender touching  
lawguy9801 : 11/20/2017 12:03 pm : link
In comment 13698963 bumpsinthenight said:
Quote:
as he gains possession with 'both' hands. Close but correct call. Now the spot is an issue.



Thanks for posting this. I agree that that is the one instant where he was being touched as the ball settled into his arms. But is the catch complete at that instant?
RE: Bang bang play  
Sarcastic Sam : 11/20/2017 12:04 pm : link
In comment 13699149 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:

The problem, however, is that there are only two possible results. Either Lewis is:
A) Down at the 6 or
B) Not down and scored a TD

Placing the ball down at the 2 makes absolutely no sense in the context of the play. Lewis rolls away from the defender at the 6 and is not contacted again. How could the ball be placed at the 2? It makes literally no sense.


Absolutely. And I think that's what the refs were initially discussing after the play, but then decided, eh, eff it, let's just go home.
RE: The refs were questionable yesterday, but not on this one  
Keith : 11/20/2017 12:07 pm : link
In comment 13699202 Matt M. said:
Quote:
He was downed by contact.


Technically, they were questionable on this play too. He's clearly down by contact at the 6, there's no debate on that. However, the ball was placed at the 2. Questionable for sure.

Refs  
Giantslifer : 11/20/2017 2:26 pm : link
So many judgment calls in NFL, refs seem to make up rulings as they go along.
Even the TV "experts" can't make same call 2X in row.
Does Vegas have a line on how many questionable calls will be made in any game?
Every replay would count as questionable call. What would over / under be?
I'm guessing I would take the over all times.
McAdoo was told by the refs that they felt pretty strongly  
regulator : 11/20/2017 2:32 pm : link
it was a catch and down by contact. I'm not sure if the visual evidence would have been indisputable enough to overturn the call on the field.
Down by contact  
BlackLight : 11/20/2017 2:40 pm : link
is not reviewable unless there's a fumble. And in any case, I don't think a replay would've overturned it as down by contact in the first place.
RE: RE: I thought the same thing initially,  
Greg from LI : 11/20/2017 2:46 pm : link
In comment 13699192 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
If the ball had squirted out after the defender let him go, the refs would have almost certainly called it incomplete as the catch was not completed.


Exactly this. I have absolutely no doubt that it wouldn't have been a catch if Lewis let it get away from him, so why would a fingertip on his arm at that point count as contact? At the time he made the catch, no one was touching him.
This is not true...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 11/20/2017 3:02 pm : link
Quote:
Down by contact
BlackLight : 2:40 pm : link : reply
is not reviewable unless there's a fumble.


Plays to determine if a runner or receiver has been touched or if a knee/elbow/body part has caused him to be down are 100% eligible for review.
Based on my understanding of the rule,  
bumpsinthenight : 11/20/2017 3:18 pm : link
the second he has possession, control of the ball where it is not moving; starts the 'catch' process, in that instance, it is a catch.

What you hear from refs and reading the ruling book is the receiver has to 'complete' catch process. IMO it will stay as a catch if they complete the process. This comes into play a lot when the receiver is 'going to ground.' It is a catch the second they have control but they have to maintain it through the entire act to maintain the catch. So if they catch inbounds, while sliding out of the back of the end zone, it is a catch as long as the ball wasn't moving when they were inbounds. Losing or bobbling will start the catch process all over

Shepard's play in the beginning of the season is the go-to example for Giant's fans for the definition of a catch while going to the ground. Shepard caught the ball and it was a catch and would have been ruled complete if he maintained possession after impacting the ground. I don't know of a great analogy but it is like a runner breaking the tape for the world record, it counts at the time as soon as you break the tape but it really isn't a record until the piss test comes back... (dot the Is and cross the Ts) to make it 'official.'

In Lewis's case the minute he as possession it triggers the 'its a catch' and can, therefore, be down by contact but it isn't a completion until he maintains the possession throughout when going to the ground.

There was the other play with King (I think?) where he went to the ground, was touched and then the ball got knocked out. He caught the ball on the ground for a catch. He maintained possesiion while going to the ground so the second he is touched he is down-by-contact, can't be ruled a fumble.
the 2 yard line spot makes no sense  
Peter from NH (formerly CT) : 11/20/2017 5:48 pm : link
whichever way you make the call....

I thought he was down by contact  
NYerInMA : 11/20/2017 6:15 pm : link
there's a split second after he gains control off the ball where the defender's fingers are still touching him, so he is down. However, the ball should've been spotted at the 6, where it was caught, instead of at the 2. I have no idea what the refs were doing there.
My understanding on the spot...  
Dan in the Springs : 11/20/2017 6:19 pm : link
because he was touched going to the ground while completing the catch, he was going to be down by contact IF he completed the catch. He did complete the catch, but not until he hit the 2 yard line.

Hence, down by contact at the 2.
As pointed out during the game,  
section125 : 11/20/2017 7:34 pm : link
the defender barely had a finger on the biceps as he gained control.
Why is this being argued? Even the slightest contact means he is down.

Like all, I thought it was a TD until the replay. Then could not understand the spot at the 2 not the 6 yd line.
RE: Based on my understanding of the rule,  
Gatorade Dunk : 11/20/2017 7:51 pm : link
In comment 13699460 bumpsinthenight said:
Quote:
the second he has possession, control of the ball where it is not moving; starts the 'catch' process, in that instance, it is a catch.

What you hear from refs and reading the ruling book is the receiver has to 'complete' catch process. IMO it will stay as a catch if they complete the process. This comes into play a lot when the receiver is 'going to ground.' It is a catch the second they have control but they have to maintain it through the entire act to maintain the catch. So if they catch inbounds, while sliding out of the back of the end zone, it is a catch as long as the ball wasn't moving when they were inbounds. Losing or bobbling will start the catch process all over

Shepard's play in the beginning of the season is the go-to example for Giant's fans for the definition of a catch while going to the ground. Shepard caught the ball and it was a catch and would have been ruled complete if he maintained possession after impacting the ground. I don't know of a great analogy but it is like a runner breaking the tape for the world record, it counts at the time as soon as you break the tape but it really isn't a record until the piss test comes back... (dot the Is and cross the Ts) to make it 'official.'

In Lewis's case the minute he as possession it triggers the 'its a catch' and can, therefore, be down by contact but it isn't a completion until he maintains the possession throughout when going to the ground.

There was the other play with King (I think?) where he went to the ground, was touched and then the ball got knocked out. He caught the ball on the ground for a catch. He maintained possesiion while going to the ground so the second he is touched he is down-by-contact, can't be ruled a fumble.

I'm not arguing the rule, just the inconsistency. If the catch can subsequently become incomplete AFTER the touch which is good enough to be considered down by contact, then it's either already a catch at the time of the contact (with whatever subsequent possession considered separately based on a completed catch) or the defender should be required to touch the receiver down after whatever point the catch has been completed to the rule's satisfaction.

It's inconsistent to allow the defender to down a player on a catch that isn't technically complete.
Play happened literally in front of me  
redwhiteandbigblue : 11/20/2017 8:42 pm : link
and he was definitely touched when he had the ball. We were hoping it would not be reviewed but even the replay on the jumbotron behind us was pretty conclusive that he was down by contact.
RE: Play happened literally in front of me  
Gatorade Dunk : 11/20/2017 10:12 pm : link
In comment 13699782 redwhiteandbigblue said:
Quote:
and he was definitely touched when he had the ball. We were hoping it would not be reviewed but even the replay on the jumbotron behind us was pretty conclusive that he was down by contact.

I'm not sure anyone is disputing that he was touched when he had the ball, just that at the point when he was touched, would that have been good enough for the refs to call it a catch if the ball came out right afterward? If whatever happens next might have been enough to call it incomplete, then he was touched before the catch had been completed.
RE: Great catch but he was down at the six. Defender touching  
bradshaw44 : 11/20/2017 10:25 pm : link
In comment 13698963 bumpsinthenight said:
Quote:
as he gains possession with 'both' hands. Close but correct call. Now the spot is an issue.



You stopped it at an opportune point. Since heís hitting the ground if you watch in real time the ball moves again meaning possession has not occurred. By the time he secures it heís a good distance from the DB.
My point being  
bradshaw44 : 11/20/2017 10:29 pm : link
The way they rule possession for players going to the ground, it Isnít fully possessed until they are done the fall and STILL control the ball. So you canít be in possession of the ball if your fall hasnít ended.
Otherwise  
bradshaw44 : 11/20/2017 10:30 pm : link
Dez and Megatron are owned apologies.
*owed  
bradshaw44 : 11/20/2017 10:37 pm : link
.
NFL Refs  
Alwaysblue22 : 11/21/2017 10:25 am : link
They are the WORST is sports. I see calls every week that are strange and wrong. I still do not know what holding is since it is apparently fine to place a defender in a head lock but you dare not pull his jersey. Almost every kickoff and punt return is called back for blocking from behind. I no longer know where the back of a player is since it now appears to start from the side of a player. And worst of all after every Touchdown you have to watch to see if there was a flag because a TD is never a Touchdown any longer until all of the players separate and the field can be checked to make sure there is no yellow thing lying on the ground. Now a broadcast announcer does not call "Touchdown", he calls "Touchdown if there is no flag". Pass interference is called inconsistently from crew to crew.I think these refs should be subject to a Breathalyzer test before every game. I do realize that based on the size and speed of the players it is hard to make correct calls all of the time. But Re-play was suppose to allow corrections and sometimes the officials cannot even get it right even after viewing a replay. And the ting that they miss the most is grabbing the face mask... which is something that should always be noticed if thy are paying attention. It can get very frustrating.
RE: As pointed out during the game,  
HomerJones45 : 11/21/2017 10:37 am : link
In comment 13699719 section125 said:
Quote:
the defender barely had a finger on the biceps as he gained control.
Why is this being argued? Even the slightest contact means he is down.

Like all, I thought it was a TD until the replay. Then could not understand the spot at the 2 not the 6 yd line.
It can be a fingernail, it's still down by contact.

Which way do you guys want it? Would you all have been happier if the refs threw a flag for illegal contact and gave the Giants 5 yards? PI in which case it's a dead ball? or down by contact which was the same as PI. Seems to me the refs got this one right.
Was the play  
NJGiantFan84 : 11/21/2017 12:51 pm : link
even reviewed? I might have a crazy theory. I am wondering if they might have ruled that he "gave himself up." At the two yard-line, he crouched down on his knees (in a position similar to Victor Cruz "fumble" in Arizona in 2011) as he tried to get up.

That's the only way I can see the ball going to the 2. Even if the PI was accepted, it should have been at the 6.

I'm not arguing for this, just throwing it out there.



Back to the Corner