Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

NGT: The Clemons touchdown yesterday

BillKo : 2/5/2018 4:17 pm
Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth both seemed sure that the call should have been overturned.

I agreed. He established two feet down but then the ball moved - once he regained possession with one foot still down, the second foot looked to be on the endline.

Is bobbling/shifting of ball a different type of losing possession, or is this only instances when the ground causes the loss of possession/ball movement?

What did everyone think?

Thought the final catch by Ertz was good, going in as a runner.

Final thought: everyone seem to say they can't wait until they change the rule to something better. What exactly does that mean? Whatever they change it to, you'll have a new population of plays that will make it hard to interpret - particularly when instant replay is involved breaking down to frame by frame.

Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: RE: I wonder if the NFL made a decision to call this game  
Keith : 2/5/2018 4:35 pm : link
In comment 13822655 cjac said:
Quote:
In comment 13822651 Keith said:


Quote:


differently than they've called all the games this season. The refs let them play a lot(which I am ok with). Barely any penalties called. No overturns on weird rules(Clement and Ertz TD's). This game was completely different than every game I witnessed this season. League directive? Maybe they didn't want to turn off the widespread audience so they called it that way?



The officiating was perfect, they should use this as a template to call all regular season games next year.


Agreed. It was actually like the 2007 SB. Refs let them play and kept this whistles out of their stupid mouths. I wish every game was like that.
RE: Clearly NOT a catch.  
BillKo : 2/5/2018 4:35 pm : link
In comment 13822659 Boy Cord said:
Quote:
Also, I had to step away to deal with a child rearing issue during Ertz's replay review. That didn't look like a TD either. The fk? Would like to get opinions on that one as well.


I thought he made enough of a football move to become a runner.

Thus, when he broke the plane, the play was over despite the fumble - which he recovered himself anyway.
RE: Clearly NOT a catch.  
giants#1 : 2/5/2018 4:36 pm : link
In comment 13822659 Boy Cord said:
Quote:
Also, I had to step away to deal with a child rearing issue during Ertz's replay review. That didn't look like a TD either. The fk? Would like to get opinions on that one as well.


Ertz's was a TD (IMO). The other one was not.
I understand why people think it was a non-catch  
LG in NYC : 2/5/2018 4:37 pm : link
but I didn't think there was enough to OT it (in fact, I bet - and won - on the outcome of that call during the party I was at)...
and further, i think it should have been a catch... that is exactly the kind of minutiae we should do away with when trying to determine catch or not.

he caught it, got 2 feet in bounds, and hit the ground with the all in his hands. any bobble was so minor that it should be ignored.
Ertz caught the ball at the 5-6 yard line...  
LG in NYC : 2/5/2018 4:39 pm : link
he was most definitely a runner by the time he got to the goal line. that one shouldn't have even been in doubt.
RE: I understand why people think it was a non-catch  
Matt M. : 2/5/2018 4:39 pm : link
In comment 13822665 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
but I didn't think there was enough to OT it (in fact, I bet - and won - on the outcome of that call during the party I was at)...
and further, i think it should have been a catch... that is exactly the kind of minutiae we should do away with when trying to determine catch or not.

he caught it, got 2 feet in bounds, and hit the ground with the all in his hands. any bobble was so minor that it should be ignored.
Both of the TDs that were questioned I thought there was nothing to overturn. I thought both were catches to begin with, but in replay there was nothing that would allow the call to be overturned.
It's the Super Bowl  
JohnB : 2/5/2018 4:43 pm : link
every rule is relaxed including this one. Besides most non regular NFL watching fans would ever understand the stupidity of the catch rule. It is simpler just to rule it as a catch and move on.
RE: Ertz caught the ball at the 5-6 yard line...  
Giants in 07 : 2/5/2018 4:46 pm : link
In comment 13822671 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
he was most definitely a runner by the time he got to the goal line. that one shouldn't have even been in doubt.


Definitely, but so was Jesse James TD against NE that was called back.

The whole "going to the ground" thing flies in the face of all common sense.
J. James  
LG in NYC : 2/5/2018 4:49 pm : link
I thought he caught the ball right at the goal line and thus the question was more about whether he caught it in the EZ or just outside (making him a runner as well).

There really wasn't much doubt about Ertz's status as he crossed the goal line.
RE: J. James  
Giants in 07 : 2/5/2018 4:53 pm : link
In comment 13822701 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
I thought he caught the ball right at the goal line and thus the question was more about whether he caught it in the EZ or just outside (making him a runner as well).

There really wasn't much doubt about Ertz's status as he crossed the goal line.


Agree. But again, nobody knows the rules. To me, the question was whether Ertz jumped or if he was being taken to the ground. This is what Collinsworth was saying, I think. If the latter, then they've ruled that play incomplete all year.

The issue is that neither of those things should be in consideration for what makes a catch.
RE: I understand why people think it was a non-catch  
Keith : 2/5/2018 4:53 pm : link
In comment 13822665 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
but I didn't think there was enough to OT it (in fact, I bet - and won - on the outcome of that call during the party I was at)...
and further, i think it should have been a catch... that is exactly the kind of minutiae we should do away with when trying to determine catch or not.

he caught it, got 2 feet in bounds, and hit the ground with the all in his hands. any bobble was so minor that it should be ignored.


Did you not watch football all season long?? We all agree, both Ertz and Clement should have been TD's, but all season long they've ruled the other way on plays as obvious as those.
RE: RE: Ertz caught the ball at the 5-6 yard line...  
shockeyisthebest8056 : 2/5/2018 4:54 pm : link
In comment 13822693 Giants in 07 said:
Quote:


Definitely, but so was Jesse James TD against NE that was called back.



No, not really. James never completed the catch or established himself as a runner. Ertz clearly established himself as a runner with the 3 steps and ball fully secured as he broke the plane. As convoluted as it can seem, I think the rules are well-established now. I thought the Jesse James play wasn't a catch as soon as I saw the replay.

The only plays I had issues with this season are the severity of the ball passing through end zone penalty (Seferian-Jenkins) and the Sterling Shepard end zone catch versus Philly in week 3.
I thought replay was inconclusive so they let it stand.  
Blue21 : 2/5/2018 4:56 pm : link
as called on the field.
Keith - I did  
LG in NYC : 2/5/2018 4:59 pm : link
that's why I said I understand the reasoning against.

I just didn't think there was enough movement to over turn it.

My comments about what 'should' be a catch are separate from the above specific play.
Def not.  
Keith : 2/5/2018 4:59 pm : link
Both replays were very clear. They made a decision conclusively.
RE: RE: RE: Ertz caught the ball at the 5-6 yard line...  
Giants in 07 : 2/5/2018 4:59 pm : link
In comment 13822709 shockeyisthebest8056 said:
Quote:
In comment 13822693 Giants in 07 said:


Quote:




Definitely, but so was Jesse James TD against NE that was called back.





No, not really. James never completed the catch or established himself as a runner. Ertz clearly established himself as a runner with the 3 steps and ball fully secured as he broke the plane. As convoluted as it can seem, I think the rules are well-established now. I thought the Jesse James play wasn't a catch as soon as I saw the replay.

The only plays I had issues with this season are the severity of the ball passing through end zone penalty (Seferian-Jenkins) and the Sterling Shepard end zone catch versus Philly in week 3.


If those two calls are the only ones you have a problem with, then I'd question how many games you watched this year.

You have former WR's, coaches, referees etc stating that nobody has a clue what the rule is. It was a horrible year for the league in that respect and they deserve to have it come up in the Super Bowl
I think both calls were the right calls(in the spirit of a catch),  
Keith : 2/5/2018 5:00 pm : link
but then there are 10-15 calls(TD calls) throughout the season that changed results of games that were called differently. Its like they changed the rule strictly for the SB.
RE: I think both calls were the right calls(in the spirit of a catch),  
Giants in 07 : 2/5/2018 5:02 pm : link
In comment 13822720 Keith said:
Quote:
but then there are 10-15 calls(TD calls) throughout the season that changed results of games that were called differently. Its like they changed the rule strictly for the SB.


Exactly what I was trying to say
Who the fuck is Clemons?  
adamg : 2/5/2018 5:05 pm : link
.
They've purposely made the rules vague  
GeorgeAdams33 : 2/5/2018 5:15 pm : link
...to give themselves some leeway when screwing a team over.
RE: RE: Clearly NOT a catch.  
Eman11 : 2/5/2018 5:19 pm : link
In comment 13822664 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 13822659 Boy Cord said:


Quote:


Also, I had to step away to deal with a child rearing issue during Ertz's replay review. That didn't look like a TD either. The fk? Would like to get opinions on that one as well.



Ertz's was a TD (IMO). The other one was not.


I agree. It certainly looked to me like Ertz clearly became a runner which made it the correct call. He wasn't going to the ground in the process of making the catch. He established as a runner.

The Clements play should've been overturned last night It was exactly like the Benjamin reversed TD in the Bills/Pats game. If Benjamin's wasn't a TD, this one wasn't either. They were practically identical plays.
RE: I thought the Ertz play was obviously a TD.  
81_Great_Dane : 2/5/2018 5:24 pm : link
In comment 13822652 shockeyisthebest8056 said:
Quote:
I'm not sure why it needed more than 30 seconds to confirm that.
Seriously. He catches the ball, clearly has control, takes a couple of steps. At that point, he's a runner. Once the ball breaks the plane in his possession, the play is over. It's not complicated.

Michaels & Collinsworth are wringing their hands and moaning about this or that and is it or isn't it, and I'm yelling at my TV. Sheesh.
RE: J. James  
Eman11 : 2/5/2018 5:39 pm : link
In comment 13822701 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
I thought he caught the ball right at the goal line and thus the question was more about whether he caught it in the EZ or just outside (making him a runner as well).

There really wasn't much doubt about Ertz's status as he crossed the goal line.


No. It didn't matter where JJ caught it. The problem with that play was him going to the ground in the process of making the catch. He never established as a runner first so it didn't matter if he was in or out of the end zone. He was still going to the ground during the catch.

Another example of where not mattering is Sterling Shepard who was in the EZ but deemed to be going to the ground during the catch.

Agreed about there being no doubt on the Ertz play though.
Missed Calls  
Peppers : 2/5/2018 5:45 pm : link
The Clemons TD should have been over turned.

The Nick Foles TD reception was illegal formation.

And they set a pick on that key Ertz reception on the last drive.

There's no doubt (at least in my mind) that those three plays changed the outcome of the game.
Clearly...  
bw in dc : 2/5/2018 5:48 pm : link
Clemons didn't have possession until after he landed out of bounds on his side. And he never had his feet in bounds as he was trying to get possession. This was a very easy overrule by the boys in NYC.

I was stunned how that was not overturned. In fact, I'm almost ready to suggest there may have been something conspiratorial because of the number of catch controversy calls New England got in their favor this see year (see the Steelers and Jets games). Plus, I put nothing past Goodell and his disciples.

Look, New England was their own worst enemy because they were a catastrophe on defense. So I'm not going to say the Clemons catch cost the Pats the game. But it was a definite miss on a TD play and that means Philly's score was inflated by 4 points...

Ertz's catch was indeed a catch because he became a runner.
RE: Missed Calls  
bw in dc : 2/5/2018 5:50 pm : link
In comment 13822787 Peppers said:
Quote:

And they set a pick on that key Ertz reception on the last drive.



So true. It was more than a pick. It was a total, illegal block, and close to a tackle...
.  
arcarsenal : 2/5/2018 5:53 pm : link
Here's the simplest way of putting it...

Based on the actual rules, it should not have been ruled a catch. He doesn't secure the ball until his second foot lands and then the 3rd one touches OOB.

But, the rules should probably be simplified so that play IS, by rule, a catch.

There's way too much grey area.
As I saw the Clement catch,  
CT Charlie : 2/5/2018 6:09 pm : link
he caught it (briefly secured it) with both feet down in bounds. Then he moved the ball to his left hand/arm. In doing so the ball wobbled, but it was still under his control.

If you moved a ball from one arm to the other at high speed, being punched or tackled, there might be a moment when the ball wasn't tucked tight to your stomach but it is still under your control.
RE: Missed Calls  
Eman11 : 2/5/2018 6:13 pm : link
In comment 13822787 Peppers said:
Quote:
The Clemons TD should have been over turned.

The Nick Foles TD reception was illegal formation.

And they set a pick on that key Ertz reception on the last drive.

There's no doubt (at least in my mind) that those three plays changed the outcome of the game.


I heard today on the Foles play Jeffrey was close enough to the line and motioned to the ref when he lined up to get the ok he was in a proper position and not too far off the line.

However Bart Scott said Foles should've been called for illegal procedure on the play.

He's allowed as a QB to move forward from the shotgun so he can be heard to change the play, or give instructions to his line but when he didn't return to his QB position he should've been flagged like anyone else who moves forward on a play. Not sure if that's true or there's a loophole there but he sounded like he was certain of the rule there.
RE: As I saw the Clement catch,  
Eman11 : 2/5/2018 6:19 pm : link
In comment 13822814 CT Charlie said:
Quote:
he caught it (briefly secured it) with both feet down in bounds. Then he moved the ball to his left hand/arm. In doing so the ball wobbled, but it was still under his control.

If you moved a ball from one arm to the other at high speed, being punched or tackled, there might be a moment when the ball wasn't tucked tight to your stomach but it is still under your control.


Problem is he was going to the ground so it makes it one of those murky calls once the ball moves.

If they were being consistent with how they called that play all year, it should've been overturned and ruled incomplete.

Like I said earlier, look no further than the Benjamin TD play vs the Pats. Pretty much the same exact play. It was ruled a TD on the field but overturned on review.

RE: RE: Ertz caught the ball at the 5-6 yard line...  
MetsAreBack : 2/5/2018 6:29 pm : link
In comment 13822693 Giants in 07 said:
Quote:
In comment 13822671 LG in NYC said:


Quote:


he was most definitely a runner by the time he got to the goal line. that one shouldn't have even been in doubt.



Definitely, but so was Jesse James TD against NE that was called back.

The whole "going to the ground" thing flies in the face of all common sense.


James did not take 4 steps with the ball secured in hands before falling into the end zone. He also didnt clearly break the plane while taking steps 3 and 4.

I hate the Pats and I despise the Eagles so i got fucked on both calls - but both were right under the current system, and not remotely similar plays.
RE: RE: RE: Ertz caught the ball at the 5-6 yard line...  
Giants in 07 : 2/5/2018 6:33 pm : link
In comment 13822834 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
In comment 13822693 Giants in 07 said:


Quote:


In comment 13822671 LG in NYC said:


Quote:


he was most definitely a runner by the time he got to the goal line. that one shouldn't have even been in doubt.



Definitely, but so was Jesse James TD against NE that was called back.

The whole "going to the ground" thing flies in the face of all common sense.



James did not take 4 steps with the ball secured in hands before falling into the end zone. He also didnt clearly break the plane while taking steps 3 and 4.

I hate the Pats and I despise the Eagles so i got fucked on both calls - but both were right under the current system, and not remotely similar plays.


Collinsworth was clearly using that play as the basis for questioning whether it was a TD or not so I donít think think they are all that different.

I agree with you that it was a clear TD. But my argument is that the NFL knowingly created this inconsistency
RE: RE: Missed Calls  
Peppers : 2/5/2018 7:00 pm : link
In comment 13822824 Eman11 said:
Quote:
In comment 13822787 Peppers said:


Quote:


The Clemons TD should have been over turned.

The Nick Foles TD reception was illegal formation.

And they set a pick on that key Ertz reception on the last drive.

There's no doubt (at least in my mind) that those three plays changed the outcome of the game.



I heard today on the Foles play Jeffrey was close enough to the line and motioned to the ref when he lined up to get the ok he was in a proper position and not too far off the line.

However Bart Scott said Foles should've been called for illegal procedure on the play.

He's allowed as a QB to move forward from the shotgun so he can be heard to change the play, or give instructions to his line but when he didn't return to his QB position he should've been flagged like anyone else who moves forward on a play. Not sure if that's true or there's a loophole there but he sounded like he was certain of the rule there.


There's a picture of the play where it clearly shows illegal formation, I'll try to find it.

The illegal procedure call also makes sense.
RE: As I saw the Clement catch,  
section125 : 2/5/2018 7:00 pm : link
In comment 13822814 CT Charlie said:
Quote:
he caught it (briefly secured it) with both feet down in bounds. Then he moved the ball to his left hand/arm. In doing so the ball wobbled, but it was still under his control.

If you moved a ball from one arm to the other at high speed, being punched or tackled, there might be a moment when the ball wasn't tucked tight to your stomach but it is still under your control.


He did not purposely move the ball from one hand to the other. It was bobbling, almost dropped and he had to reach for it and then it slid down his left side to his hip, where half the ball was hanging out behind his arm. If you consider that as being secure at that point, he had already place his left foot out of bounds. It was clearly not a completed pass in this or any set of rules.

Ertz's was a catch, I was wrong on my initial thoughts on the play. He caught it, ran about 5 yards and crossed the plain and it popped out. But it was already a TD.
RE: RE: RE: Missed Calls  
Eman11 : 2/5/2018 7:07 pm : link
In comment 13822853 Peppers said:
Quote:
In comment 13822824 Eman11 said:


Quote:


In comment 13822787 Peppers said:


Quote:


The Clemons TD should have been over turned.

The Nick Foles TD reception was illegal formation.

And they set a pick on that key Ertz reception on the last drive.

There's no doubt (at least in my mind) that those three plays changed the outcome of the game.



I heard today on the Foles play Jeffrey was close enough to the line and motioned to the ref when he lined up to get the ok he was in a proper position and not too far off the line.

However Bart Scott said Foles should've been called for illegal procedure on the play.

He's allowed as a QB to move forward from the shotgun so he can be heard to change the play, or give instructions to his line but when he didn't return to his QB position he should've been flagged like anyone else who moves forward on a play. Not sure if that's true or there's a loophole there but he sounded like he was certain of the rule there.



There's a picture of the play where it clearly shows illegal formation, I'll try to find it.

The illegal procedure call also makes sense.


Nah man, no need. I've seen it. The reports today pretty much said he was close enough and if he was flagged for that, they could flag it on most plays during the season.

Plus he was seen looking to the linesman and motioning to him like receivers do when lining up outside. I could see it being called but can also see why it wasn't. If the linesman there told him he was ok, there's not much to it after that.

I read the NFL rules and control is not specified as the ball not  
PatersonPlank : 2/5/2018 7:10 pm : link
moving. You can have control but just move the ball to a different position to get it away from a defender (for example). So if they determined that he had control for the 1st step, and then just shifted the ball to free up an arm for the fall (another example), that ball is still completely in his control. So the catch is good.
...  
christian : 2/5/2018 7:12 pm : link
If the Ertz catch isn't a TD I quit.

What the hell else do you need to be doing for 5 yards to have possession?
Oh, I agree the commentators are confused  
MetsAreBack : 2/5/2018 7:17 pm : link
but, and I generally like Collinsworth (more than most on BBI anyway) -- but he seemed really off last night in general.
All I am going to say  
Mark from Jersey : 2/5/2018 7:30 pm : link
is I am sick of these types of discussions. It shouldn't be this hard. The owners need to prioritize this in the off-season and fix it. Its getting beyond ridiculous.
That 100% wasn't a catch  
kelsto811 : 2/5/2018 7:34 pm : link
But in regards to the crossing the plane rule/ball hitting the ground, what call this year was incorrect or inconsistent? I'm honestly asking bc I feel like every one was called correctly
It was definitely a catch  
Gregorio : 2/5/2018 8:08 pm : link
and they got the call right.

He caught the ball between the 5 and 6 yard lines, ran 2 steps (in NFL rule terms, established himself as a runner), leaped, and the ball crossed the plane of the end zone.

At this point, it is by definition a touchdown.

What happened afterward, ball gets loose whatever, is irrelevant. It was already a touchdown.

I think many on this thread....  
BillKo : 2/5/2018 8:09 pm : link
...are ruling the Clements (not Clemons lol) catch based on what they think the rule should be.

Not how the rule has been interpreted over the last few years. Again, I say it's clearly not a catch.

Also, as far as letting stuff go and not calling penalties and such, Goodell has gone on record as saying call it in SB the same way you'd call it in Game 1. So he says.

The Jesse James play  
Gregorio : 2/5/2018 8:13 pm : link
was different, because he never establish himself as a runner. He received the ball about the 1.5 yard line, took no steps and fell into the end zone where it bobbled.

The difference is clear to me.

See the JJames replay here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63VVS-Iqmmk


crap I had the Clements TD  
Gregorio : 2/5/2018 8:23 pm : link
mixed up with Zach Ertz' td. Ertz is the one that to me clearly received it at the 5 yd line and established himself as a runner. Sorry for the confusion.
RE: I think many on this thread....  
Bobby Humphrey's Earpad : 2/5/2018 10:18 pm : link
In comment 13822928 BillKo said:
Quote:
...are ruling the Clements (not Clemons lol) catch based on what they think the rule should be.

Not how the rule has been interpreted over the last few years. Again, I say it's clearly not a catch.

Also, as far as letting stuff go and not calling penalties and such, Goodell has gone on record as saying call it in SB the same way you'd call it in Game 1. So he says.


Main point of my brief thread last night - regardless of whether you like it, Steratore and his crew called the Super Bowl differently than any other game was officiated all season: no offensive holding, for example.

The Clement TD was not a TD based on movement of the ball and his foot - that's the way it was called all year.
This is my biggest complaint...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/6/2018 8:16 am : link
Quote:
No consistency in the NFL.
Keith : 2/5/2018 4:29 pm : link : reply
In what world was that a catch compared to what we saw all season long. The Ertz TD is in a similar boat. I understand why its a TD, but no consistency with how they've called plays like that all season long. The Clement "TD" was mind boggling to me. Did they miss the ball moving in his arm?


The Bills thought for sure Kelvin Benjamin had a TD against the Pats. It was overturned with less evidence than the Clement TD.

Greg Olsen had a similar call go against him. Back of the end zone, ball is being repositioned in the arm, only one foot down. Golden Tate had a similar call. There's probably a few more to look at as well.

Collinsworth said that's a play that has been overturned all year long, and I agree. But there was a different standard applied yesterday. It is strange that people have wanted the interpretation to be used all year long and it wasn't. Then, on the biggest stage it is.

Just inconsistency. All we needed Sunday was a dual possession play that was correctly called a interception.
To be clear  
MetsAreBack : 2/6/2018 9:19 am : link
yes, the Clement call in my mind is the controversial one. That to me was not a catch. Understand the criticism.

Conversely, for the life of me, I cannot understand the uproar over the clear as day Ertz touchdown. Frankly, it took them too long to review - but i guess given the stakes of the game at that point they took a little extra time. NBD. As Greg explains above, its not remotely the same situation as the James catch, unfortunately.
The Ertz catch was the same situation  
Keith : 2/6/2018 9:36 am : link
as the Dez drop. Did they change the rule after the Dez drop?
What I don't know..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/6/2018 9:41 am : link
about the Ertz catch is when he is contacted. If he's touched by the defender, the rule states he needs to survive the ground. Was he touched before establishing two feet, or was he touched sooner. That would impact the interpretation.
RE: The Ertz catch was the same situation  
MetsAreBack : 2/6/2018 11:09 am : link
In comment 13823322 Keith said:
Quote:
as the Dez drop. Did they change the rule after the Dez drop?



Not close to the Dez drop. Dez took 1 maybe 2 steps falling to the ground, clearly never a runner. See 1:15 mark of video.
Dez drop - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner