(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.
Is that a TD?
Me thinks so
He was hit BEFORE he caught the ball which drew the flag, but was never touched after he caught it.
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.
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
still, heady play for him to get up and run into the endzone...
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?
Link - ( New Window )
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.
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?
probably why there was no thread.
Is that a TD?
Me thinks so
^^^^^^
This
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hence, down by contact at the 2.
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.
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.
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.
You stopped it at an opportune point. Since he’s hitting the ground if you watch in real time the ball moves again meaning possession has not occurred. By the time he secures it he’s a good distance from the DB.
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.
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.
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.