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.
Beyond and before the fall, the ball moves after his second foot successfully hit down.
But that doesn't end the play, right?
What if they're out of timeouts? Only as many challenges as no timeouts? So many logistics that wouldn't make sense in that setup.
Not to mention, the automatic reviews are in there to avoid any totally heinous missed calls.
1. They're applied inconsistently, even with the central office now having input on all challenges.
2. The NFL just had one of it's premier analysts, a former WR no less, state during the SB that he has no idea what is or isn't a catch anymore.
That's kind of the point. Did Clemons have possession or was the ball moving? Collinsworth and Michaels seemed to think the latter.
Well done there
If that was a bobble (it was) and he didn't get 2 feet down after controlling the ball, that should not have been a good TD.
The other TD is obviously a different story because it is an obvious TD everywhere except the rule book.
Put me in the category of them needing to just go back to the way it used to be and focus on what matters - clear possession of the ball and 2 feet down in bounds.
Completely agree with this.
Also, I wasn't so sure the ball moved as much as he was trying to tuck it away, as players do after they catch a pass.
Quote:
the play should be over. Its just become ridiculous.
That's kind of the point. Did Clemons have possession or was the ball moving? Collinsworth and Michaels seemed to think the latter.
Continuing on that, was the play over? He started to lose possession, clearly. I think you have to make a football move still, right?
It's just not catch, two feet down, and you're done. You have to maintain possession for some sort of move afterwards, and "survive the ground" as they say.
That's what I saw.
And as he regained possession, one foot was down.
The other, then looked to go out of bounds on the endline.
That seems to be the rule.
The officiating was perfect, they should use this as a template to call all regular season games next year.
And therein lies the problem. Obvious catches are no longer so obvious through the fault of the NFL themselves. We're being conditioned to doubt what our eyes tell us because nobody knows what the rule is.
It's ridiculous, but the NFL deserves it.
There were a handful of plays this season that were as obvious as the Ertz TD that went the other way though. It was not called consistently with how they called plays this season.
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.
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.
Ertz's was a TD (IMO). The other one was not.
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.
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.
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.
There really wasn't much doubt about Ertz's status as he crossed the goal line.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
Exactly what I was trying to say
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.